Re: [PATCHES] Removal of backward-compatibility docs mentions

> The attached patch removes or minimizes some documentation mentions of > backward compatibility for release 7.2 and earlier. I have not altered > any mentions of release 7.3 or later. The release notes were not > modified, so the changes are still documented, just not in the main > docs. Patch

Re: [PATCHES] Additional current timestamp values

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> The patch as given strikes me as pretty broken --- it does not advance > >> statement_timestamp when I would expect (AFAICS it only sets it during > >> transaction start). > > > Uh, it does advance: > > But not once per statement -

Re: [PATCHES] Additional current timestamp values

Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 7:58 pm, in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Momjian > wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> But not once per statement --- in reality, you get a fairly > arbitrary > >> behavior that will advance in some cases and not others when > dealing > >>

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Automatically setting work_mem

On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:49:25PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:14:42PM -0700, David Gould wrote: > > > To avoid running out of swap and triggering the oom killer we have > > had to reduce work_mem below what we prefer. > > Dunno about your work_mem, but you can make su

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Automatically setting work_mem

On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:14:42PM -0700, David Gould wrote: > To avoid running out of swap and triggering the oom killer we have > had to reduce work_mem below what we prefer. Dunno about your work_mem, but you can make sure the OOM killer doesn't kill you as follows

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Automatically setting work_mem

On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 06:38:53PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 13:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I still do, for multi-user systems. Releasing unused memory from a large > > > CREATE INDEX will allow that memory to be swapped out, e

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Automatically setting work_mem

On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 13:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I still do, for multi-user systems. Releasing unused memory from a large > > CREATE INDEX will allow that memory to be swapped out, even if the brk > > point can't be changed. > > Say what? It can get

Re: [PATCHES] patch to have configure check if CC is intel C compiler

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Yeah. NaN == 0 is just silly ... > > > From what I can tell from the instruction set docs and test programs, the > > actual bug/misoptimization is that NaN == anything. W

Re: [PATCHES] patch to have configure check if CC is intel C compiler

Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah. NaN == 0 is just silly ... > From what I can tell from the instruction set docs and test programs, the > actual bug/misoptimization is that NaN == anything. Which is even > sillier. > I actually thought tha

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Automatically setting work_mem

On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:17:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I still do, for multi-user systems. Releasing unused memory from a large > > CREATE INDEX will allow that memory to be swapped out, even if the brk > > point can't be changed. > > Say what? It

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Automatically setting work_mem

Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I still do, for multi-user systems. Releasing unused memory from a large > CREATE INDEX will allow that memory to be swapped out, even if the brk > point can't be changed. Say what? It can get "swapped out" anyway, whether we free() it or not. More to th

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Automatically setting work_mem

On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 23:07 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Where are we on this patch? Well the patches work and have been performance tested, with results posted. Again, the title of this thread doesn't precisely describe the patch any longer. The question is do people believe there is benefit in