[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Index Scan using rt1_zipr, rt1_zipl on rt1 (cost=0.00..121893.93
rows=30835 width=302)
Index Cond: ((zipr = 2186) OR (zipl = 2186))
zipl |925 |
zipr |899 |
Those n_distinct values for zipl and zipr seem aberrant --- too
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
As you can see it is the confusion that bothers me. I am not sure how I
would write a coherent paragraph explaining this.
The same thing you wrote the last time we had to do this (7.3.1).
I don't recall any huge volume of complaints last time, so I
Title: RE: [HACKERS] Escaping the ARC patent
Just an idle thought, but each connection to the DB could add a fixed
amount to some queueing parameter. The amount added to be set
per backend,
and the client could use a SET variable to adjust the
standard amount for
it's own
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 03:16:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Klatt reported here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2005-02/msg00031.php
that we have problems because the flat files global/pg_pwd
and global/pg_group aren't rebuilt
I think I'm telling you what you already know, but there are lots of
names missing from that list (myself included), so that process isn't
going to work.
Matthew
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Using the same search for 7.4 shows only 48 patch submitters, based on
posts to pgsql-patches ...
Aizaz
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
I think I'm telling you what you already know, but there are lots of names
missing from that list (myself included), so that process isn't going to
work.
When you submit'd your patch, where did you submit this to? As I said,
this list is of all
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
I think I'm telling you what you already know, but there are lots of
names missing from that list (myself included), so that process isn't
going to work.
When you submit'd your patch, where did you submit this to? As I
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
I think I'm telling you what you already know, but there are lots of names
missing from that list (myself included), so that process isn't going to
work.
When you submit'd your
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Well I'm positive I submitted all my pg_autovacuum patches to the
patches list, however searching the archives for autovacuum I can't
find anything that old. How far back to the searchable archives go?
back to 96 or so ...
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We can't build the files very easily during WAL recovery, but
what about if we compare the files to the database after the normal
backend startup? If they're different, regenerate the files.
This assumes that you can get in in the first place, which is
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
What I am thinking is that we have to punt on this problem until the
proposed pg_role catalog is in place. With the grolist array
representation of group membership replaced by a fixed-width
pg_role_members catalog, there would be no need to deal with any
Just brain storming a bit here. It seems to me there are two approaches for
cross-column statistics within a single table:
A) Treat an index on a,b,c the same way Postgres treats an expression index
on ROW(a,b,c). That is, gather full statistics on the distribution of that
ntuple of
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We can't build the files very easily during WAL recovery, but
what about if we compare the files to the database after the normal
backend startup? If they're different, regenerate the files.
This assumes that
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
As you can see it is the confusion that bothers me. I am not sure how I
would write a coherent paragraph explaining this.
The same thing you wrote the last time we had to do this (7.3.1).
I don't recall any huge volume of
Hi Marc,
I think I'm telling you what you already know, but there are lots
of names
missing from that list (myself included), so that process isn't
going to
work.
Me too. Maybe some improvement in the routine.
When you submit'd your patch, where did you submit this to? As I
15 matches
Mail list logo
