O
n Fri, 2014-04-25 at 23:58 +0800, Hengky Liwandouw wrote:T
hanks to give me the right direction to get help. Okay, here is the
detail.
>
>
> CREATE table test (id SERIAL, produkid TEXT, warehousename TEXT, onhand
> INTEGER);
>
> COPY test (id, produkid, warehousename, onhand) FROM stdin;
> 1
Since my alternative is using json, that is heavier (need to store keys in
every row) than composite-types.
Updating an element on a specific composite_type inside an array of them is
done by UPDATE table SET composite[2].x = 24;
So last standing question, is it possible to insert an array of
comp
Hannes Erven writes:
> On 2014-04-27 21:53, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sitting on an open transaction for hours would be a bad idea.
> I'm wondering why this is and what the consequences might be - I
> thought, the MVCC model would handle that rather well?
Vacuum can't delete dead rows if there's some
On 4/27/2014 2:07 PM, Hannes Erven wrote:
On 2014-04-27 21:53, Tom Lane wrote:
>
Sitting on an open transaction for hours would be a bad idea.
I'm wondering why this is and what the consequences might be - I
thought, the MVCC model would handle that rather well?
Could please someone elabora
I'll probably ask @pgbouncer mailing list if i can use it with
advisory_locks per session. If not, even raw sessions will be enough.
Some comments inline.
Thanks
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:07 PM, David G Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dorian Hoxha wrote
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I am
Hi,
On 2014-04-27 21:53, Tom Lane wrote:
>
Sitting on an open transaction for hours would be a bad idea.
I'm wondering why this is and what the consequences might be - I
thought, the MVCC model would handle that rather well?
Could please someone elaborate on this or provide some pointer? T
Dorian Hoxha wrote
> Hi list,
>
> I am trying to use postgresql as a queue for long-jobs (max ~4 hours)
> using
> advisory_locks. I can't separate the long-job into sub-jobs.
>
>
>1. At ultimate-best-case scenario there will be ~100 workers, so no
>web-scale performance required.
>Is
Dorian Hoxha writes:
> I am trying to use postgresql as a queue for long-jobs (max ~4 hours) using
> advisory_locks. I can't separate the long-job into sub-jobs.
>1. At ultimate-best-case scenario there will be ~100 workers, so no
>web-scale performance required.
>Is there a problem w
Hi list,
I am trying to use postgresql as a queue for long-jobs (max ~4 hours) using
advisory_locks. I can't separate the long-job into sub-jobs.
1. At ultimate-best-case scenario there will be ~100 workers, so no
web-scale performance required.
Is there a problem with 100 open sessions
Thenx for explanations.
W dniu 27.04.2014 16:56, David G Johnston pisze:
Andres Freund-3 wrote
Hi,
On 2014-04-27 10:23:18 +0200, Rafał Pietrak wrote:
I've just experienced an unexpected (for me) "loss" of DELETE. Is this a
feature or a bug (postgres v.s. SQL)?
I guess you're using 9.2 or ol
Andres Freund-3 wrote
> Hi,
>
> On 2014-04-27 10:23:18 +0200, Rafał Pietrak wrote:
>> I've just experienced an unexpected (for me) "loss" of DELETE. Is this a
>> feature or a bug (postgres v.s. SQL)?
>
> I guess you're using 9.2 or older? You are not allowed to update the
> deleted row in a BEFOR
Hi,
On 2014-04-27 10:23:18 +0200, Rafał Pietrak wrote:
> I've just experienced an unexpected (for me) "loss" of DELETE. Is this a
> feature or a bug (postgres v.s. SQL)?
>
> test case -
> test=# CREATE TABLE test (a int, b text);
> test=# INSERT INTO
Hi the list,
I've just experienced an unexpected (for me) "loss" of DELETE. Is this a
feature or a bug (postgres v.s. SQL)?
test case -
test=# CREATE TABLE test (a int, b text);
test=# INSERT INTO test (a,b) values (1,'asd');
test=# INSERT INTO
13 matches
Mail list logo
