Re: [HACKERS] Compile libpq with vc8
Bruce Momjian wrote: It was applied 24-hours ago, and should be in CVS HEAD and the 8.1 stable branch. I downloaded the source, following the instructions at http://www.postgresql.org/developer/sourcecode/. It seems I didn't get your commit :( Log for win32.mak: revision 1.36 date: 2005/09/16 18:58:48; author: momjian; state: Exp; lines: +1 -4 This correction is required of nmake of Windows. Did I check out the correct branch? Yannick. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
[HACKERS] Compile libpq with vc8
Hi,
I am trying to compile libpq with vc8. I got errors in wchar.c
..\..\backend\utils\mb\wchar.c(99) : error C2054: expected '(' to follow
'inline'
..\..\backend\utils\mb\wchar.c(100) : error C2085: 'pg_euc_mblen' : not
in formal parameter list
..\..\backend\utils\mb\wchar.c(100) : error C2143: syntax error :
missing ';' before '{'
If I remove the inline, I got an error in:
[...]postgresql-8.1.4\src\include\utils/elog.h(105) : error C2365:
'errcode' : redefinition; previous definition was 'typedef'
Does anyone already compiled libpq with vc8?
Yannick.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] SAN, clustering, MPI, Backplane Re: Postgresql on
Le jeu 08/07/2004 à 14:22, Andrew Piskorski a écrit : You want to do clustering for failover/reliability reasons, for performance/scalability reasons, or for both? for all that of course :) For some stuff to read, see the dozen or so links I posted here: http://openacs.org/forums/message-view?message_id=128060 I already see all these one, but thanks :) E.g., the Lustre cluster file system claims full POSIX file system semantics (locking, etc.), so you should certainly be able to run PostgreSQL on it. No idea how well that works, but it should certainly let you do fail over. As a standard filesystem on a SAN configured for take care about only one node can mount the fs at the same time (using stonith for example). Perhaps you could even somehow, eventually, get multiple PostgreSQL instances on different machines to all cooperate with read/write access to the same database files over the network. (And without using super-expensive SCI hardware the way Clusgres does.) That might get you a true cluster RDBMS, if it worked well. It's exactly what i want. Just how closely tied is PostgreSQL to its use of shared memory? I see very interesting article about openMosix which support clustered shared memory and distributed locking and processus migration (at OS level) : http://howto.ipng.be/MigSHM-openMosix/x90.html Seems the only things which forbid using Postgres with OpenMosix is the Actually PostgreSQL uses shared memory but not the system semaphores for locking it. Thus, it does not satisfy migShm constraints and so it cannot benefit from migShm. migShm constraint are here: http://mcaserta.com/maask/assumptions.html What about PostgreSQL specifically makes message passing no good, and is the same also true for ALL RDBMSs? What about systems like Backplane, which claims to be the only open-source, transactional, truly distributed database.? http://www.backplane.com/ Thanks for this links, since a time i thinked to found exactly what i'm searching ... Until i read that : LIMITATIONS * Only one datatype is implemented, 'varchar'. In otherwords, everything is a string. * We do not support triggers * We do not support UNIQUE * We only support AND clauses - no parenthesis or OR. Yet. http://www.backplane.com/docs.shtml?doc=2 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
[HACKERS] Postgresql on SAN
Hi ppl, What need to do (understand, to devel) to allow several postgres instance running from several server to access to the same data (no replication at all) hosted on a SAN ? I'm probably wrong but i think this type of dev should be easier to realize than replication ? Because all node are always consistent since they use exactly the same data ? In fact i'm asking why opensource db go only to the replication solution than true clustering solution using SAN like Oracle RAC ? I don't see the big advantage of the replication method (of course, for application which need more than few nodes hosting small db). The price could be an answer but what about a db of several hundred giga byte ? When a node is added it must contain this capacity nearly for nothing (i thinks its more and more a waste when number of node grow ...). Is this a planed feature ? Sincerely, Yannick. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql on SAN
Le mar 06/07/2004 à 19:07, Alvaro Herrera a écrit : On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:17:16PM +0200, Yannick Lecaillez wrote: What need to do (understand, to devel) to allow several postgres instance running from several server to access to the same data (no replication at all) hosted on a SAN ? Clustered shared memory, cluster-wide spinlocks. And with decent performance, while at it ... Perhaps could be interesting to look at cluster file system which seems to have same problems and find solution about locking (i.e OpenGFS). http://opengfs.sourceforge.net/showdoc.php?docpath=cvsmirror/opengfs/docs/ogfs-lockingdoctitle=Lockingdocauthor=ben.m.cahill(at)intel.com Found on google a clustered shared memory (openMosix project) http://www.unixreview.com/documents/s=8989/ur0404l/ I would have the pgsql-hackers genius for do that :) . I think its the only feature which force company to buy 5$ Oracle licence ... Sincerely, Yannick. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
