Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I wonder, if we were to use an LWLock to protect writing to the stderr
pipe, would it be too contentious?
Sorry, that's a nonstarter.
1. Not all our processes are connected to shared memory. Even the ones
that are don't nec
The functions bt_metap, bt_page_stats and bt_page_items had moved
from contrib/pgstattuple to pageinspect. We've already fixed English
documentation, but Japanese version does not catch up. The attached
patch just removes those descriptions from README.ja in pgstattuple.
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takah
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wonder, if we were to use an LWLock to protect writing to the stderr
> pipe, would it be too contentious?
Sorry, that's a nonstarter.
1. Not all our processes are connected to shared memory. Even the ones
that are don't necessarily have PGPROCs.
2.
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Attached is my WIP version of the CSV logs patch. It does not include
docs changes.
It fixes the CSV thinko I just posted about, and also implements the
"safe to rotate" scheme I suggested yesterday, at quite a modest cost.
As Tom rightly poin
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Attached is my WIP version of the CSV logs patch. It does not include
> docs changes.
>
> It fixes the CSV thinko I just posted about, and also implements the
> "safe to rotate" scheme I suggested yesterday, at quite a modest cost.
> As Tom rightly points out, that do
Attached is my WIP version of the CSV logs patch. It does not include
docs changes.
It fixes the CSV thinko I just posted about, and also implements the
"safe to rotate" scheme I suggested yesterday, at quite a modest cost.
As Tom rightly points out, that does not protect us against interlea
Greg Smith wrote:
The attached patch fixes all the issues I found in the original
version of this code and completes the review I wanted to do. Someone
else will need to take this from here. As I already mentioned, I
can't comment on the quality of the piping implementation used to add
thi
Magnus Hagander wrote:
>Hannes Eder wrote:
>> Is it worth doing this the "Perl-way" and using File::Find? If so, I
can
>> work an a patch for that.
>>
> It's certainly cleaner that way, but I don't find it a major issue.
But I'd
> rather see that fix than the other one.
Here we go. See attach
