On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 10:32 +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> So I propose three Window node buffering strategies,
> row/frame/partition buffering so as to avoid unnecessary row
> buffering.
Sounds good from here. Can I suggest you release the code in phases?
It would be better if we got just one
Eric Haszlakiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:15:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, different chroot would do it, but you didn't mention that ;-)
> er.. why does a chroot matter?
Putting the servers in different chroots would mean that they see two
different /tmp
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:15:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Eric Haszlakiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:48:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> That's already documented not to work, and not for any hidden
> >> implementation reason: you'd have a conflict on the Unix-d
Eric Haszlakiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:48:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's already documented not to work, and not for any hidden
>> implementation reason: you'd have a conflict on the Unix-domain socket
>> name.
> er.. but I didn't get any kind of error a
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:48:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Eric Haszlakiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I just spent a couple of days trying to figure out why I couldn't start
> > two servers on the same port, even though I was configuring separate
> > listen_address values.
>
> That's alre
> I can find how to do it with the new (window execution model) design,
> (and the design is suitable to fix it above,) but at first before
> going into trivial specs, I would like core hackers to review the
> model is better than before or not. Thank you for your cooperation.
So no objections app
On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 09:24 +0300, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
> "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Someone at the PostgreSQL West conference last weekend expressed an
> > interest in a Lisp procedural language. The only two Lisp environments
> > I've found so far that aren't GPL are
2008/10/18 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> GCL (and Clisp) are both reasonable implementations of Common Lisp.
> However, they are both GPL, which I think is an issue for PostgreSQL
> community members. CMUCL development more or less stalled out, and many
> of the heavyweights moved
> I still need to go through backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c
> to figure out exactly how we use the one-dimensional values.
>
Here's a page that helped me figure all this out.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/planner-stats-details.html
>>
>> 2) Do we want to fold the MCV's into the depende
