Hi,
I know the answer :)
I tried to find the patch that caused the failure, and when doing so,
rechecking a build which had succeeded now failed. So this was an
environment problem.
The solution was to change the ulimit for data segment size. I hadn't
thought of that because I had
Gregory Stark wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:32 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I've been thinking
we should call this feature just Clustered Indexes
So we would have clustered tables which are tables whose heap is ordered
according to an index and separately clustered indexes which are
I do see your points regarding the existence of use cases for this
feature, and I agree that at worst, the implementation of this feature
would provide a way to greatly simplify query design and at best provide
a whole new method of obtaining decision supporting data from a
relational
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
There's a third related term in use as well. When you issue CLUSTER, the
table will be clustered on an index. And that index is then the index
the table is clustered on. That's a bit cumbersome but that's the
terminology we're using at the moment. Maybe we should to
Edward, Heikki,
In my experience, EAV
schemas are usually result of improper database design by someone not
understanding the relational theory and the principles of normalization.
Edward, you should be aware that EAV schema are a source of disagreement among
database designers. Some
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 11:22 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Gregory Stark wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:32 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I've been thinking
we should call this feature just Clustered Indexes
So we would have clustered tables which are tables whose heap is
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 19:06 +0100, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
There's a third related term in use as well. When you issue CLUSTER, the
table will be clustered on an index. And that index is then the index
the table is clustered on. That's a bit cumbersome but that's
Hello,
I didn't get any response on the GENERAL list so i'm escalating this
We have several independent database servers with ~50GB+ databases running
postgres 8.0.x. We are planning to upgrade these databases to postgres
8.2.xover the weekend
We plan to use the following steps to upgrade
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Zara?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The solution was to change the ulimit for data segment size.
Oh really ...
Doesn't this mean that there is some place where the return value of
malloc is not checked for null ?
You can see for yourself that the value *is* checked in the
Naz Gassiep wrote:
Let us not do the same to
SQL and implement SKYLINE on our own, only to have other DBMS vendors
implement it in different ways and then finally when the SQL standard
includes it they try to make some kind of average approximation of the
implementations resulting in *none*
Shane Ambler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we consider this thoroughly and compile a suitable syntax that covers
all bases it could be used as the basis of the standard definition or be
close to what ends up in the standard.
I'll bet you a very good dinner that the word SKYLINE will never be
11 matches
Mail list logo
