Hi,
I have to compare an OLD.Value with a NEW.Value on PostgreSQL 8.2.4 plpgsql
trigger function:
IF OLD.Value NEW.Value THEN
...
but, if OLD.Value IS NULL and NOT NEW.Value IS NULL the previous IF does not
work and I have to use this method:
IF (OLD.Value NEW.Value) OR (OLD.Value IS NULL
Omar Bettin wrote:
Hi,
I have to compare an OLD.Value with a NEW.Value on PostgreSQL 8.2.4
plpgsql trigger function:
IF OLD.Value NEW.Value THEN
...
but, if OLD.Value IS NULL and NOT NEW.Value IS NULL the previous IF does
not work and I have to use this method:
IF (OLD.Value
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/1593.html suggests that this uninteresting
(too much of the database is examined) once you go past an edit distance
of 1. I don't know if this is a problem in your case (it is in mine).
Did you see the test results in
Hi All,
I just noticed a minor bug in our search results. Searching for
is_insteadbool in 8.3 docs returns the following page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/catalog-pg-rewrite.html
is_instead is a column, and bool is the datatype, both mentioned in
different columns. I know
Omar Bettin wrote:
Hi,
I have to compare an OLD.Value with a NEW.Value on PostgreSQL 8.2.4
plpgsql trigger function:
IF OLD.Value NEW.Value THEN
...
but, if OLD.Value IS NULL and NOT NEW.Value IS NULL the previous IF
does not work and I have to use this method:
IF (OLD.Value
* Alvaro Herrera:
I am wondering if we can set the system up so that it skips postmaster,
bgwriter etc, and feels more preference towards normal backends (but
then, we would try to give them less points than other regular
processes). That could make the system more robust overall, even if
Hi gurus.
I'm working on runs formation [ tuplesort.ctuplestore.c ]
Is there a way to know and store the address of the first and the last position
of a run on a tape?
I would store the location of the first tuple while arranging the current run
on the current destination tape.
On the
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Alvaro Herrera:
I am wondering if we can set the system up so that it skips postmaster,
How much does that help? Postmaster c still need to be shut down
when a regular backend dies due to SIGKILL.
The $64 problem is that if the parent postmaster
* Tom Lane:
How much does that help? Postmaster c still need to be shut down
when a regular backend dies due to SIGKILL.
The $64 problem is that if the parent postmaster process is victimized
by the OOM killer, you won't get an automatic restart.
The classic answer to that is to put it
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:22:42AM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CLUSTER isn't DDL. Most forms of ALTER TABLE are. And CREATE blah,
etc.
Fwiw I would call CLUSTER DDL. Note that it does make a change
that's visible in the table definition afterwards.
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Tom Lane:
The $64 problem is that if the parent postmaster process is victimized
by the OOM killer, you won't get an automatic restart.
The classic answer to that is to put it into inittab. 8-/
Except that no standard services are actually run that
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:22:42AM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
There are plenty of DDL commands which modify data (CREATE INDEX,
ATLER TABLE ALTER COLUMN TYPE). The defining characteristic of DDL
is not that it doesn't modify the data but that it does
Tom Lane wrote:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Alvaro Herrera:
I am wondering if we can set the system up so that it skips postmaster,
How much does that help? Postmaster c still need to be shut down
when a regular backend dies due to SIGKILL.
The $64 problem is that if the
* Tom Lane:
IIRC, the idea is to get the machine out of OOM land with one killed
process, even if it causes dependent processes to fail.
You're just parroting the reasoning given on the cited webpage, which
is loony because it takes no account whatsoever of actual practice.
Oops, I hadn't
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 02:23:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:22:42AM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
There are plenty of DDL commands which modify data (CREATE INDEX,
ATLER TABLE ALTER COLUMN TYPE). The defining characteristic of
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
Maybe we should just react equally brute-force, and just disable the
OOM-Killer for the postmaster if we're running on linux. It seems that
something like echo -17 /proc/pid/oom_adj should do the trick.
That will protect the postmaster but none of the children.
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
Maybe we should just react equally brute-force, and just disable the
OOM-Killer for the postmaster if we're running on linux. It seems that
something like echo -17 /proc/pid/oom_adj should do the trick.
That will protect the
Tom Lane wrote:
Another thought is to tell people to run the postmaster under a
per-process memory ulimit that is conservative enough so that the
system can't get into the regime where the OOM killer activates.
ulimit actually behaves the way we want, ie, it's polite about
telling you you
Hello,
I am cleaning orafce module and I would to eliminate duplicit code
with core. Is in core similar macro or function?
text*
ora_clone_text(text *t)
{
text *result;
result = palloc(VARSIZE(t));
SET_VARSIZE(result, VARSIZE(t));
memcpy(VARDATA(result),
Hi,
Le Saturday 02 February 2008 20:39:15 Florian Weimer, vous avez écrit :
Oops, I hadn't actually read it (I can't reach the Web from this
terminal).
I had a friend in the same situation as you seem to be in and implemented a
mail bot for him to somewhat access documents on the www:
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am cleaning orafce module and I would to eliminate duplicit code
with core. Is in core similar macro or function?
datumCopy?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6:
On 02/02/2008, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am cleaning orafce module and I would to eliminate duplicit code
with core. Is in core similar macro or function?
datumCopy?
yes, it is it.
thank you
Pavel Stehule
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
Hi All,
I just noticed a minor bug in our search results. Searching for
is_insteadbool in 8.3 docs returns the following page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/catalog-pg-rewrite.html
is_instead is a column, and bool is the datatype,
On Feb 2, 2008 2:43 PM, David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It still involves DDL-like operations in the sense of changing (for
the duration of the query) trigger behavior.
But that change of trigger behavior is still more in the DML sense
than DDL sense.
The point of TRUNCATE is that we
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 05:23:39PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
On Feb 2, 2008 2:43 PM, David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It still involves DDL-like operations in the sense of changing
(for the duration of the query) trigger behavior.
But that change of trigger behavior is still
I wrote:
Gurjeet Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I saw a strange behaviour on one of the production boxes. The
pg_stat_activity shows a process as IDLE and yet 'waiting' !!! On top of
it (understandably, since its IDLE), there are no entries for this pid in
pg_locks!
Hmm, I can reproduce
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 05:23:39PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
I think it would be nice to be able to have more trigger hooks
relating to DDL changes, but I also think that will represent some
fundamentally more difficult problems being raised than
On Feb 2, 2008 2:28 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote:
Gurjeet Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I saw a strange behaviour on one of the production boxes. The
pg_stat_activity shows a process as IDLE and yet 'waiting' !!! On top
of
it (understandably, since its IDLE), there
Gurjeet Singh escribió:
I just looked at the patch... Isn't PG_TRY() an expensive call to make in
the lock.c code? I was thinking of registering a Xact callback using
RegisterXactCallback() and performing 'waiting' reset in that callback if
the Xact event is XACT_EVENT_ABORT.
PG_TRY is not
On Feb 2, 2008 3:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gurjeet Singh escribió:
I just looked at the patch... Isn't PG_TRY() an expensive call to make
in
the lock.c code? I was thinking of registering a Xact callback using
RegisterXactCallback() and performing 'waiting' reset in
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gurjeet Singh escribió:
I just looked at the patch... Isn't PG_TRY() an expensive call to make in
the lock.c code? I was thinking of registering a Xact callback using
RegisterXactCallback() and performing 'waiting' reset in that callback if
the Xact
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/indexes-opclass.html
The examples given at the end of this page do not work in 8.2.4. I referred
the 8.3 docs, and the examples there work fine for 8.2.4 db.
Best regards,
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo
Gurjeet Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/indexes-opclass.html
The examples given at the end of this page do not work in 8.2.4.
They work fine for me ...
regards, tom lane
---(end of
Sorry for the noise I am using SCREEN sessoins, and confused the session
I was in.
Sorry again...
On Feb 2, 2008 9:05 PM, Gurjeet Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/indexes-opclass.html
The examples given at the end of this page do not work in
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 13:06 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
The ORDER BY clause would also used in XMLAGG, so we should try to parse this
in a generalized way.
Yeah, that should be doable. We could go further and expose ORDER BY to
CREATE AGGREGATE, so that users could write aggregates that are
35 matches
Mail list logo
