What's the generally accepted method for killing processes that went 'all
wacky' in postgres?
I think i've seen in this group that kill -INT would be the way to go.
I'm playing around with different options for a median function. this one got
out of hand
and was taking too long, so i wanted to
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, David Kerr wrote:
> What's the generally accepted method for killing processes that went 'all
> wacky' in postgres?
>
> I think i've seen in this group that kill -INT would be the way to go.
>
> I'm playing around with different options for a median function. this
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, David Kerr wrote:
>> What's the generally accepted method for killing processes that went 'all
>> wacky' in postgres?
>>
>> I think i've seen in this group that kill -INT would be the way to go.
>>
>> I'm play
Scott Marlowe writes:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, David Kerr wrote:
>> I'm playing around with different options for a median function. this one
>> got out of hand
>> and was taking too long, so i wanted to kill it:
>>
>> test=# select array_median(array(select t1 from test2 order by 1));
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 07:18:07PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
- On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
- > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, David Kerr wrote:
- > What's most likely happening is that it's stuck in a tight loop that
- > doesn't check for interrupts, so it just keeps
David Kerr writes:
> But, i don't see any coded loop or way for me to insert a signal check. (I'm
> not much of a
> programmer) the function was just:
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION array_median(anyarray)
> RETURNS anyelement AS
> $$
> SELECT CASE
> WH
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:14:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
- David Kerr writes:
- > But, i don't see any coded loop or way for me to insert a signal check.
(I'm not much of a
- > programmer) the function was just:
-
- > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION array_median(anyarray)
- > RETURNS anyelement AS
David Kerr writes:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:14:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> - Huh. How big an array were you trying to invoke it on?
> there are 81 records in the table it's just
> test=# \d test2
>Table "public.test2"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> +---
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 01:13:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
- David Kerr writes:
- I tried it on a table with 81 random values. It took frickin'
- forever, but seemed to be willing to respond to cancels anywhere
- along the line. I'm not sure why you're seeing differently.
Hehe, yeah. For me
> - type, and access into a varwidth array is O(n), so the sorting
> - step you've got here is O(n^2). It might help to use unnest()
> - instead of this handmade version of it ...)
>
> unnest() is 8.4 only, right?
>
> I'm actually probably just going to install R and use the median
> function fr
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Kerr wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 01:13:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> - David Kerr writes:
> - I tried it on a table with 81 random values. It took frickin'
> - forever, but seemed to be willing to respond to cancels anywhere
> - along the line. I'm
11 matches
Mail list logo
