Hello
I am confused about the ideas of sessionbackendprocess when I
read the lmgr part of source code. What's the difference among them?
Thanks,
Ranc.
rancpine cui wrote:
Hello
I am confused about the ideas of sessionbackendprocess when I
read the lmgr part of source code. What's the difference among them?
They are all the same.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB
Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been seeing this failure intermittently on Narwhal HEAD, and once
on 8.1. Other branches have been OK, as have other animals running on
the same physical box. Narwhal-HEAD is run more often than any other
builds however.
Anyone have
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
If you want to poke at it, I'd suggest changing the ERROR to PANIC
(it's in bufmgr.c) to cause a core dump, run installchecks till you
get a panic, and then look around in the dump to see what you can find.
It'd be particularly interesting
Marcin Waldowski wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, it's definitly the right primitive. But we're creating it with a
max
count of 1.
That's definitely wrong. There are at least three reasons for a PG
process's
The UUID generation functions are tagged IMMUTABLE,
shouldn't they be VOLATILE?
--
marko
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
Marko Kreen wrote:
The UUID generation functions are tagged IMMUTABLE,
shouldn't they be VOLATILE?
Some of them should be. Let me recheck that.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You
One of the few situations where I experience poor performance under PostgreSQL,
compared to other, commercial databases, is when an EXISTS predicate is used.
Actually, these often do perform quite well, but there are some situations
where there are optimizations available which other products
Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
If you want to poke at it, I'd suggest changing the ERROR to PANIC
(it's in bufmgr.c) to cause a core dump, run installchecks till you
get a panic, and then look around in the dump to see what you can find.
It'd be
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I was afraid of that. Well, at least get a dump of page 104 in that
index so we can see what's on-disk.
Sure - I'll have to try with 8.1/8.2 unless you have a pg_filedump
that'll work with -HEAD?
No, I don't, but a plain hex/ascii dump
Hello I'm trying to implement a new SortMerge algorithm, and see how it
compares with the current algorithm. In doing so, rather than using select, I'd
like to introduce a new verb so that Select is not modified.
I looked at the source code, but could find the place where Postgres SQL
Uma Krishnan wrote:
Hello I'm trying to implement a new SortMerge algorithm, and see how
it compares with the current algorithm. In doing so, rather than using
select, I'd like to introduce a new verb so that Select is not modified.
I looked at the source code, but could find the place
Uma Krishnan wrote:
Hello I'm trying to implement a new SortMerge algorithm, and see how it
compares with the current algorithm. In doing so, rather than using
select, I'd like to introduce a new verb so that Select is not modified.
I looked at the source code, but could find the place
Hi,
I don't insist the name and the default of the GUC parameter. I'm
afraid wal_fullpage_optimization = on (default) makes some confusion
because the default behavior becomes a bit different on WAL itself.
I'd like to have some more opinion on this.
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
With
William Lawrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This program that does PQprepare and then
PQexecPrepared has worked previously, but doesn't
work now.
...
strcpy(openStmt, declare C1 cursor for select cola
from tprep
where cola = $1);
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We discussed it a long time ago already, but I really wished the DSM
wouldn't need a fixed size shared memory area. It's one more thing the
DBA needs to tune manually. It also means we need to have an algorithm
for deciding what to keep in the
Hiroki Kataoka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
But does it
work for tables that have a small hot part that's updated very
frequently?
I think there is no problem. Bloating will make pages including the
unnecessary area which will not be accessed. Soon, those
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for making clearly understandable my patch!
We might want to call GetCheckpointProgress something
else, though. It doesn't return the amount of progress made, but rather
the amount of progress we should've made up to that point or we're in
18 matches
Mail list logo
