Tom Lane wrote:
> Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Should the relation overflow be a WARNING or a LOG? It sounds like
> > if you have that problem it's almost certainly a problem, right?
>
> I'd go for making them both LOG, I think. More consistent.
Can we also update this wording:
IN
David Fetter wrote:
> Please find enclosed a patch, per Dennis Bjrklund, that uses -f
> for input files rather than <. This makes error messages, &c. more
> expressive.
>
> David Fetter
Applied. Thanks.
(I reordered the arguments as Peter suggested.)
--
Bruce Momjian
Previous version of patch removed from queue.
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
-
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > The original is actually in HTML in doc/src/FAQ/FAQ.html. I made the
> > modifications you suggested in the patch and am attaching the diff.
>
> Thank you - I could not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> The original is actually in HTML in doc/src/FAQ/FAQ.html. I made the
> modifications you suggested in the patch and am attaching the diff.
Thank you - I could not remember which was the chicken and which was
the egg :) but I will diff the HTML ne
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
>
> Didn't we do that already?
This patch is for thread safety:
> Thanks a lot. The patch attached solves the tread
> safety problem. Please review it before applying,
> I am not s
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
Didn't we do that already?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
---
Ni
Eric Crampton wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Eric Crampton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I noticed in the TODO that there is an item requesting a function
> >> which
> >> returns the uptime of the postmaster. I've wanted that as well. So,
> >> I've
> >> added ju
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Eric Crampton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I noticed in the TODO that there is an item requesting a function which
> > returns the uptime of the postmaster. I've wanted that as well. So, I've
> > added just such a thing: server_start_time(). This function returns the
> > time
On Feb 24, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
"Eric Crampton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I noticed in the TODO that there is an item requesting a function
which
returns the uptime of the postmaster. I've wanted that as well. So,
I've
added just such a thing: server_start_time(). This function ret
"Eric Crampton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I noticed in the TODO that there is an item requesting a function which
> returns the uptime of the postmaster. I've wanted that as well. So, I've
> added just such a thing: server_start_time(). This function returns the
> time when the postmaster was s
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Added a new question about sorting with a NULL. Also some minor
> cleanups, especially in regards to some of the http links: is
> some automatic tool messing these up somehow? (many had spaces
> and odd breaks in
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd go for making them both LOG, I think. More consistent.
Ok, here's another try :) With a couple more questions...
1. If I read Simon's email correctly, it implied that he wanted to see
the "free space map" message for a VACUUM even when VERBOSE
Hello hackers,
I noticed in the TODO that there is an item requesting a function which
returns the uptime of the postmaster. I've wanted that as well. So, I've
added just such a thing: server_start_time(). This function returns the
time when the postmaster was started; a simple now() - server_star
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Ron Mayer wrote:
> Should the relation overflow be a WARNING or a LOG? It sounds like
> if you have that problem it's almost certainly a problem, right?
And while I'm at it... what's the convention for INFOs vs LOGs?
The "checkpoint...too frequent" seemed similar, and is a L
Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should the relation overflow be a WARNING or a LOG? It sounds like
> if you have that problem it's almost certainly a problem, right?
I'd go for making them both LOG, I think. More consistent.
regards, tom lane
---
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> I preferred Simon's idea of not trying to produce a warning for pages
> when we've detected relation overflow.
Sounds good. I'll make that update.
Should the relation overflow be a WARNING or a LOG? It sounds like
if you have that problem it's almost cert
Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would the updated patch below address most of the concerns?
I preferred Simon's idea of not trying to produce a warning for pages
when we've detected relation overflow.
Making it a LOG rather than WARNING does address the issue of being
too much in-your-fac
Tom Lane wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The configure test is a little broken. It needs to quote the
> > $'s.
>
> > I've rewritten the test a little.
>
> Applied, thanks.
Oops, Tom got to it first. (Darn!) :-)
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.
Oh, thanks. That is a great fix. Applied. Glad you could test it on a
machine that supports positional parameters.
---
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 10:53:08PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Applied.
Thanks everyone for the feedback on my patch.
Objections I've heard (both online and in email) included:
* WARNING is too strong for possibly OK behavior
* It's similar to "checkpoints occuring too frequently...
consider increasing...checkpoint_segments" which
is a LOG
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 19:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > +if (needed > MaxFSMPages)
> > +ereport(WARNING,
> > +(errmsg("max_fsm_pages(%d) is smaller than total pages
> > needed(%.0f)",
> > + MaxFSMPages, needed)));
>
> An u
I find this tiny (9-line) patch useful to help my clients know
when FSM settings may need updating.
Some of the more frequently asked questions here are in regards to FSM
settings. One hint I've seen is to run "vacuum verbose;". At the end
of thousands of lines of INFO and DETAIL messages
24 matches
Mail list logo
