Scott Marlowe wrote:
While all the talk of a hinting system over in hackers and perform is
good, and I have a few queries that could live with a simple hint system
pop up now and again, I keep thinking that a query planner that learns
from its mistakes over time is far more desirable.
Is it
Csaba Nagy wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 17:03, Tom Lane wrote:
status and TX2's select will not return the row. This isn't entirely
perfect because LIMIT acts before FOR UPDATE: TX2's select will return
nothing, rather than selecting the next available row as you might wish.
So you might want
FYI:
http://www.fabalabs.org/research/papers/FabalabsResearchPaper-OSDBMS-Eval.pdf
Jochem
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Tom Lane wrote:
Well, that trace makes it look like it's unhappy about the null::text
in the command, because there is no other typecast in the SELECT target
statement. Looking at the 7.3 code, the only very plausible reason for
the failure is if either unknown or text has disappeared from
Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
[ light dawns ] You've created a table named text, haven't you?
Yes, there is such a table. But even if I put the schema with
that table in the search_path I can't reproduce the error from psql.
You need this patch.
I prefer the interpretation My customer
I am experiencing a problem with dumping one specific database on
a cluster. All 143 other databases dump without giving errors.
The server runs PostgreSQL 7.3.2 on OpenBSD (I know :). pg_dump
is version 8.0.3 on Windows (upgraded from 8.0.1 which had the
same problem). The error message is:
Tom Lane wrote:
Jochem van Dieten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Below I have copy pasted the console log which has some
additional information. This bug, or a related one, seems to have
been registered previously as bug #1455
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-02/msg00021.php
Yeah
Tom Lane wrote:
Jochem van Dieten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(gdb) break elog
Breakpoint 1 at 0x16d8f8
(gdb) bt
#0 0x403ca553 in ?? () from /usr/lib/libc.so.28.5
#1 0x10e604 in mdread ()
#2 0x10f31f in smgrread ()
You forgot to continue until the breakpoint is reached --- this trace
just
Tom Lane wrote:
[ studies 7.3 code a bit ] It might work better to set the breakpoint at
elog_message_prefix, assuming you've got logging dialed down to the
point where only actual ERRORs go to the log.
Attaching to process 10284
0x403827df in ?? ()
(gdb) symbol-file postmaster
Reading
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On a particular system, loading 1 million rows (100 bytes, nothing
fancy) into PostgreSQL one transaction at a time takes about 90
minutes. Doing the same in MySQL/InnoDB takes about 3 minutes. InnoDB
is supposed to have a similar level of functionality as far as the
Tom Lane wrote:
Jochem van Dieten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While trying to create an operator to test if 2 intervals
overlap, I ran into the following limitation:
ERROR: Functions and operators can take only one set argument
(PostgreSQL 7.3.2 on OpenBSD)
It's still there, and is unlikely
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Break the SQL code that has been implemented for prior versions??
Bummer ;((.
Yes, but we don't follow the MySQL behavior, which we copied when we
added LIMIT. Seems we should agree with their implementation.
Isn't it much worse to not follow
Michelle Murrain wrote:
I'm trying to isolate a problem - using Cold Fusion, and sending to pg
a large text block, I'm getting an error:
ODBC Error Code = 08S01 (Communication link failure)
Error while executing the query; Query string is too long
Is this a Cold Fusion problem, or a
Does PostgresQL have some way to make update, insert and delete queries
not return the number of affected rows? I know that in MS SQL one would
use NOCOUNT for that.
TIA,
Jochem
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through
Tom Lane wrote:
Jochem van Dieten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does PostgresQL have some way to make update, insert and delete queries
not return the number of affected rows? I know that in MS SQL one would
use NOCOUNT for that.
Uh ... why? Seems like a useless anti-feature. Certainly
15 matches
Mail list logo
