Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> Please find attached another new version of a patch which provides a
>> working infrastructure for pg extensions.
> This patch breaks building outside the source tree in a very elaborate
> and obvious way. Unfortunately, this
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we keep the cancel query function and just lose the kill one?
That would be my druthers. I have no problem with the cancel function.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)-
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there's a .1 % chance it *corrupts* the cluster, the function is
> not acceptable.
See my response to Dave Page just now. Not only wouldn't I give you
those odds today, but I don't think we could ever get to the point of
saying that session kill
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know the details of how it works, but is it any worse/better
> than 'kill -9' (which iirc is no longer considered an absolute no-no)?
What I've been trying to remind people of is that killing just a single
backend with SIGTERM is not the normal cod
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> There are a couple of things that need adjustment:
>
> 1. typo in the makefile - ((X) should be $(X)
OK.
> 2. these cases need to be fixed:
>
> else if (strcmp(argv[i],"--includedir-server") ==0)
> get_pkginclude_path(mypath,otherpa
Here is the patch you submitted. Did you mean to uncomment out the BCB
line:
! BCB=c:\Borland\Bcc55
Also, did you mean to remove the trailing G on this line:
! CPP_PROJ= $(CPP_PROJ) -O -Oi -OS -DNDEBU
---
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Here is a patch that fixes the pipes used in find_other_exec() when
> running as a service on windows <= 2000. Required to make the pg_ctl
> service wrapper to work at al
The first time I used it was for precisely this reason - some buggy PHP code opened
hundreds of connections to a dev server which then remained open doing nothing except
wasting resources. It was particularly useful in that case as I didn't have access to
the web server at the time.
Shortly afte
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Would you use a kill operation in the way you describe above if you knew
> > that it had, say, a 1% chance of causing a database-wide PANIC each time
> > you used it?
> >
> > The odds of a problem are probably a great deal less than 1%, especially
> > if the back
Would you use a kill operation in the way you describe above if you knew
that it had, say, a 1% chance of causing a database-wide PANIC each time
you used it?
The odds of a problem are probably a great deal less than 1%, especially
if the backend is sitting idle. But they're not nil, and I don't t
(BThis patch provides a new function regexp_replace.
(Bregexp_replace extends a replace function and enables text search
(Bby the regular expression. And, a back reference can be used within
(Ba replace string.
(B(This patch for PostgreSQL 7.4.3)
(B
(BFunction: regexp_replace(str, pattern,
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Please find attached another new version of a patch which provides a
> working infrastructure for pg extensions. I hope it addresses all of
> Peter's comments. I'll be away for the next 3 weeks, so if minor
> changes are required it would be best if you could proceed without
Would you use a kill operation in the way you describe above
if you knew
that it had, say, a 1% chance of causing a database-wide PANIC
each time
you used it?
Seems there's the need for some connection killing functionality. If
it's not present, the whole cluster needs to be shut down, which mak
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Magnus Hagander
Sent: Sun 7/25/2004 12:07 PM
To: Tom Lane; Bruce Momjian
Cc: Josh Berkus; PostgreSQL-patches
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Function to kill backend
> >much further. I recall being voted down though ...
> That'
>> That's not quite the argument I think I had :-) But withuot
>being able
>> to kill the backends, there just no way for me to handle the
>sitaution
>> when I have a hundred clients eating up all available
>connections and/or
>> memory, just sitting idle, because of some freak bug in a
>client
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's not quite the argument I think I had :-) But withuot being able
> to kill the backends, there just no way for me to handle the sitaution
> when I have a hundred clients eating up all available connections and/or
> memory, just sitting idle, bec
LELARGE Guillaume wrote:
> LELARGE Guillaume a écrit :
> > Here is the latest .po file for the french 7.4 version. You'll also
> > find updates for 7.5 .po files.
> >
> > Please, apply to the respectives branches.
>
> I didn't see them applied in CVS. Are they wrong ?
Let's say they needed a bit o
>> OK, I see your point. Can anyone remember why this was needed? I
>> remember Magnus wanted query cancel, but what was the logic
>for session
>> termination?
>
>I think the argument for it went along the lines of "what if you've got
>a misbehaving client that continually issues expensive queri
18 matches
Mail list logo
