Can someone explain why LockMethodCtl is in shared memory while
LockMethodTable is in postmaster memory context?
I realize LockMethodCtl has a spinlock, so it has to be in shared
memory, but couldn't it all be put in shared memory?
Also, the code:
LockShmemSize(int maxBackends)
{
int
> >
> > > appropriate. There are several encodings for Chinese including
> > > GB(EUC-CN), Big5, EUC-TW. At least we should be able to distinguish
> > > them. What about "chinese(GB)" or whatever?
> >
> > Renamed to chinese-gb.
> >
>
> I think chinese-gb is ok, thanks!
I ended up using chinese_
Dear All PostgreSQL Expert,
May I know where can I download the
postgreSQl for window98 and how to
install it?
Thanks!
Jasper
>
> > appropriate. There are several encodings for Chinese including
> > GB(EUC-CN), Big5, EUC-TW. At least we should be able to distinguish
> > them. What about "chinese(GB)" or whatever?
>
> Renamed to chinese-gb.
>
I think chinese-gb is ok, thanks!
Regards
Laser
> Can you provide me with a list of platforms it should be tested on?
The current list is at
http://www.postgresql.org/devel-corner/docs/admin/supported-platforms.html
> No, I wouldn't do that to you. You tell me how you want the results
> to look and I'll give you copy-n-paste. All of this
> We have a Unicode (UTF-8) database that we are trying to upgrade to 7.1b4.
> We did a pg_dumpall (yes, using the old version) and then tried a restore.
> We hit the following 3 problems:
>
> 1. Some of the text is large, about 20k characters, and is multiline. For
> almost all of the lines this
> > > Hi all:
> > > The attachement is the Chinese (GB) patch for PgAccess, don't know
> > > if it's correct to post here.
> > > It's simple to do the translation, And I've test in 7.0.2 & current CVS,
> > > seems pretty good.
> > > If anyone want this little thing, I'll very happy.
> > > use
> > Hi all:
> > The attachement is the Chinese (GB) patch for PgAccess, don't know
> > if it's correct to post here.
> > It's simple to do the translation, And I've test in 7.0.2 & current CVS,
> > seems pretty good.
> > If anyone want this little thing, I'll very happy.
> > use it is very sim
Hi Vince,
Here's the next thing... how do you want to distinguish between Solaris
SPARC, Solaris INTEL (and maybe even Solaris MAC even though it isn't
sold any longer)? Each of these has a 32 and 64 bit mode also.
I thought that might be what "Platform" could be used for, but
"Architecture" so
Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
>
> Oops.
>
> I rechecked the start up script, and the 7.0.3 doesn't have fsync off or
> whatever. Dunno why I thought it was on (heh maybe because it was a lot
> faster than 6.5.3!).
>
> Hmm, this means 7.0.3 is quite fast...
>
Your app seems to have many rollbacks.
Yes ro
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:50:17AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Let me add I don't agree with this, and find the whole GPL
> heavy-handedness very distasteful.
Please, not this again. Is there a piss-and-moan-about-the-GPL
schedule posted somewhere?
Either PG is in compliance, or it's not.
> > This was discussed extensively earlier. Linking dynamically or
> > statically doesn't make a difference in the case of a library, but as
> > long as readline is an optional feature for the user it's not a
> > problem.
>
> I agree with Trond on this. It's like the problem that PHP had with bc
> I believe it was straight from CVS, perhaps it was the beta4 tarball.
> Don't know if that counts as a distribution tarball or not. I will test
> the 7.0.3 release, and double check what the error I'm getting if you
> would like.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Eisentraut [SMTP:[E
Vadim Mikheev wrote:
>
> > It may be that WAL has changed the rollback
> > time-characteristics to worse than pre-wal ?
>
> Nothing changed ... yet. And in future rollbacks
> of read-only transactions will be as fast as now,
> anyway.
What about rollbacks of a bunch uf inserts/updates/deletes?
I think UP or SMP should be an option to check, perhaps just a box for the
number of processors. Also something to capture the compile flags. I have
a dual Ppro, and it compiles fine unless I use the -j3 or -j4 commands,
then I get an error.
Matt
> -Original Message-
> From: Vince Viel
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > Got this and Justin's changes along with compiler version. Anyone think
> > of anything else?
>
> Hmm. Any suggestions on how we collate the test results for our release
> docs? And how we solicit tests for remaining platforms?
>
> In previous rele
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Pete Forman wrote:
> Vince Vielhaber writes:
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >
> > > What about adding a field where they paste the output of 'uname
> > > -a' on their system...?
> >
> > Got this and Justin's changes along with compiler version
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is an article about GPL and GPL version 3.0.
>
>
>http://icd.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=Articles&SubSection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=92350&VERSION_NUM=1
>
> The interesting thing is that Stallman says:
>
> "Our position is t
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Vince Vielhaber writes:
>
> > http://hub.org/~vev/regress.php
> >
> > What other info is needed to distinguish these systems?
>
> The operating systems should be ordered by some key other than maybe
> author's preference. ;-)
Actually it's more rand
> Got this and Justin's changes along with compiler version. Anyone think
> of anything else?
Hmm. Any suggestions on how we collate the test results for our release
docs? And how we solicit tests for remaining platforms?
In previous releases (and until now), I have kept track of results
posted
Vince Vielhaber writes:
> http://hub.org/~vev/regress.php
>
> What other info is needed to distinguish these systems?
The operating systems should be ordered by some key other than maybe
author's preference. ;-)
Linux needs to be split into one for each distribution.
'Sun' should probably be S
Vince Vielhaber writes:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
> > What about adding a field where they paste the output of 'uname
> > -a' on their system...?
>
> Got this and Justin's changes along with compiler version. Anyone
> think of anything else?
Architecture.
Here is an article about GPL and GPL version 3.0.
http://icd.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=Articles&SubSection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=92350&VERSION_NUM=1
The interesting thing is that Stallman says:
"Our position is that it makes no difference whether programs are linked
s
> Hi all:
> The attachement is the Chinese (GB) patch for PgAccess, don't know
> if it's correct to post here.
> It's simple to do the translation, And I've test in 7.0.2 & current CVS,
> seems pretty good.
> If anyone want this little thing, I'll very happy.
> use it is very simple, just gunz
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> What about adding a field where they paste the output of 'uname -a' on their
> system...?
Got this and Justin's changes along with compiler version. Anyone think
of anything else?
Vince.
--
=
Hi all:
The attachement is the Chinese (GB) patch for PgAccess, don't know
if it's correct to post here.
It's simple to do the translation, And I've test in 7.0.2 & current CVS,
seems pretty good.
If anyone want this little thing, I'll very happy.
use it is very simple, just gunzip it and copy
Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
>
> Just another data point.
>
> I downloaded a snapshot yesterday - Changelogs dated Feb 20 17:02
>
> It's significantly slower than "7.0.3 with fsync off" for one of my webapps.
>
> 7.0.3 with fsync off gets me about 55 hits per sec max (however it's
> interesting that th
I wrote:
>
> I tried with -B 1024 10 times for commit_delay=0 and 1 respectively.
> The average result of 'pgbench -c 10 -t 100' is as follows.
>
> [commit_delay=0]
> 26.462817(including connections establishing)
> 26.788047(excluding connections establishing)
> [commit_delay=1]
> 27.630405(in
Tom Lane Wrote:
> The trouble here is that CPU nice doesn't (on most platforms) change the
> behavior of the I/O scheduler, so this would only be of use to the
> extent that your queries are CPU bound and not I/O bound.
Assuming there is a major processor hit, and the backend has a UW-SCSI RAID
b
29 matches
Mail list logo
