"wjzeng" wrote:
> In pgsql/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-exec.c, there are two variables:
> -
> static int static_client_encoding = PG_SQL_ASCII;
> static bool static_std_strings = false;
>
> If enable_thread_safety is "no", how to insure libpq(dll/so) for
> thread-safety?
Use PQescape[Str
Dickson S. Guedes wrote:
Hi all,
Attached is a patch to fix a command line example in charset.sgml.
No, the options really are called LC_COLLATE and LC_CTYPE now. They were
renamed on 6th of April, just before beta1
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Se
Hi all,
Attached is a patch to fix a command line example in charset.sgml.
I hope it is correct.
[]s
--
Dickson S. Guedes
mail/xmpp: gue...@guedesoft.net - skype: guediz
http://guedesoft.net - http://www.postgresql.org.br
fix_typo_lc_collatein_charset_sgml.patch.bz2
Description: application
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Cristina M wrote:
> Hello,
> I posted to the general list, and didn't receive any replies. Therefore, I
> am trying this list now, hopefully this is the right mailing list for this
> type of questions.
> I am trying to compute the no of pages of a table. I am using
Cristina M wrote:
> I posted to the general list, and didn't receive any replies.
> Therefore, I am trying this list now, hopefully this is the right
> mailing list for this type of questions.
>
> I am trying to compute the no of pages of a table. I am using the formula :
>
> pages = ( columns w
Cristina M escreveu:
> - for table t2(l_orderkey int, l_partkey int, l_quantiy, l_tax,
> l_extendedprice, l_discount) I got an error of 42 %.
>
I suspect you have NULLs in your table; they're stored as bitmaps, so they use
little space.
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Kevin Field wrote:
Or would the only way to do this be to actually create a view and then
call pg_get_viewdef() and then delete the view?
Just make it a temporary view and then it drops when the session ends.
Here's a working shell example that transforms a view into the
On May 13, 12:52 pm, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) wrote:
> Kev writes:
> > ... I was surprised
> > to find that some of my views of the form:
> > select.from b left join a on a.id=b.id
> > ...were being translated to this:
> > SELECT..FROM (B LEFT JOIN a ON ((a.id = b.id)))
> > ..
On May 13, 12:41 pm, kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov ("Kevin Grittner")
wrote:
> Kevin Field wrote:
> > One other thing I'm just curious about, "!=" gets replaced with
> > "<>"...how come? (Feels more VB-ish than C-ish, so I was surprised
> > that that would be the official/preferred reconstruct)
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 16:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > recovery_end_command is performed *after* the UpdateControlFile() once
> > the we are DB_IN_PRODUCTION.
>
> Hmm, shouldn't it be after the last checkpoint
Definitely.
> but before we go to DB_IN_PRODUCTION?
I thin
Simon Riggs writes:
> recovery_end_command is performed *after* the UpdateControlFile() once
> the we are DB_IN_PRODUCTION.
Hmm, shouldn't it be after the last checkpoint but before we go to
DB_IN_PRODUCTION? I have to admit I've not been following this closely
though, so I may be missing someth
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 21:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> This whole thing can be considered to be a new feature.
recovery.conf will contain a new optional parameter:
recovery_end_command (string)
This parameter specifies a shell command that will be executed once only
at the end of reco
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 15:05 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Frankly, if anything it should move from contrib to the core proper. I
> regard it as an essential utility, not an optional extra.
I like that idea.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Supp
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Tobias Zahn wrote:
> Hello,
> thank you for posting the paper, it was quite interesting to read. I
> think it would be a good idea to give the two-phase optimization a try.
> As far as I know and understand the current (geqo) optimizer source,
> many important part
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> It seems that if you load libxml into a backend for whatever reason (say
> you create a table with a column of type xml) and then create a plperlu
> function that "use XML::LibXML", we get a segmentation fault.
I've applied a patch for this in HEAD. It fixes the reported
Hello,
thank you for posting the paper, it was quite interesting to read. I
think it would be a good idea to give the two-phase optimization a try.
As far as I know and understand the current (geqo) optimizer source,
many important parts are already there. For example, we can calculate
the costs of
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 14:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Does this conclusion mean that changing pg_standby is no longer
on the table for 8.4? It certainly smells more like a new feature
than a bug fix.
This whole thing can be considere
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 14:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Does this conclusion mean that changing pg_standby is no longer
> >> on the table for 8.4? It certainly smells more like a new feature
> >> than a bug fix.
>
> > This whole thing can be cons
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
That's a lot more drastic change to make in beta. Besides, the proposed
fix required backend changes. I think we should keep it in contrib. (At
least for this release: If we get more integrated replication options in
8.5, that would be a good ti
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> That's a lot more drastic change to make in beta. Besides, the proposed
> fix required backend changes. I think we should keep it in contrib. (At
> least for this release: If we get more integrated replication options in
> 8.5, that would be a good time to move pg_s
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Does this conclusion mean that changing pg_standby is no longer
>> on the table for 8.4? It certainly smells more like a new feature
>> than a bug fix.
> This whole thing can be considered to be a new feature. It's working as
> designed. But peopl
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 14:14 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> pg_standby is useful and needs to be correct.
My suggestion was designed to provide this. A misunderstanding.
> And its existence as a
> standard module is one of the things that has made me feel confident
> about recommending people
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
We're in Beta. You can't just go yanking stuff like that. Beta testers
will be justifiably very annoyed.
Please calm down.
pg_standby is useful and needs to be correct. And its existence as a
standard module is one of the things that has made me feel confident
about r
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 13:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
Does someone want to take a stab at writing a patch for that?
No, not if there is a likelihood the work would be wasted.
There always is.
(I would've wrote the patch myself right away, but I'm
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 21:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I think we should fix it for 8.4.
Agreed.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your sub
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 03:12:51PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2009/5/13 Joshua Tolley :
> > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 06:29:41AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> 2009/5/13 Joshua Tolley :
> >> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:20:14PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> >> this patch has some bugs but it
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 14:14 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> pg_standby is useful and needs to be correct. And its existence as a
> standard module is one of the things that has made me feel confident
> about recommending people to use the PITR stuff. I'll be very annoyed if
> it were to get pull
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
I don't think we're going to get this to work reliably without extending
the interface between the backend and restore_command. We've discussed
many methods and there's always some nasty corner-case like that.
I think we should leave back-branches a
Simon Riggs wrote:
I will set-up pg_standby as an external module and we can change it from
there. No more discussions-for-8.4 and I can update as required to
support each release. So let's just remove it from contrib and be done.
Counterthoughts?
We're in Beta. You can't just go yanking
Simon Riggs writes:
> I will set-up pg_standby as an external module and we can change it from
> there. No more discussions-for-8.4 and I can update as required to
> support each release. So let's just remove it from contrib and be done.
Huh? The proposed fix involves a backend change, so I don'
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 13:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > I don't think we're going to get this to work reliably without extending
> > the interface between the backend and restore_command. We've discussed
> > many methods and there's always some nasty corner-case like
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> I don't think we're going to get this to work reliably without extending
> the interface between the backend and restore_command. We've discussed
> many methods and there's always some nasty corner-case like that.
> I think we should leave back-branches as is, and g
Kev writes:
> ... I was surprised
> to find that some of my views of the form:
> select.from b left join a on a.id=b.id
> ...were being translated to this:
> SELECT..FROM (B LEFT JOIN a ON ((a.id = b.id)))
> ...before being stored in the table pg_views is derived from. My
> su
Kevin Field wrote:
One other thing I'm just curious about, "!=" gets replaced with
"<>"...how come? (Feels more VB-ish than C-ish, so I was surprised
that that would be the official/preferred reconstruct)
<> is the official SQL standard notation for "not equals", AFAIK. != is not.
Kevin Field wrote:
> One other thing I'm just curious about, "!=" gets replaced with
> "<>"...how come? (Feels more VB-ish than C-ish, so I was surprised
> that that would be the official/preferred reconstruct)
"<>" is the SQL standard operator. "!=" is a PostgreSQL extension,
for the co
On May 13, 11:31 am, Kev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a script that automatically generates the SQL to create some
> views. I'd like it to check whether its generated SQL matches the SQL
> returned by "select definition from pg_views where...". I've guessed
> most of the rules just by looking at the
Hi,
I'm having 'service' issues too:
Windows XP SP3
user account used for service is not a member of admin group.
Errors starting service, but dbengine is started and available.
If i try to stop/start with the pgctl batch files created during install,
same type of problem...
PC had 8.2-5.1 ins
Hi,
I have a script that automatically generates the SQL to create some
views. I'd like it to check whether its generated SQL matches the SQL
returned by "select definition from pg_views where...". I've guessed
most of the rules just by looking at the output, but I was surprised
to find that som
2009/5/13 Joshua Tolley :
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 06:29:41AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2009/5/13 Joshua Tolley :
>> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:20:14PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> >> this patch has some bugs but it is good prototype (it's more stable
>> >> than old patch):
>> >
>> > I'm
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 06:29:41AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2009/5/13 Joshua Tolley :
> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:20:14PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> this patch has some bugs but it is good prototype (it's more stable
> >> than old patch):
> >
> > I'm not sure if you're at the point th
hello everybody,
from my side the goal of this discussion is to extract a consensus so
that we can go ahead and implement this issue for 8.5.
our customer here needs a solution to this problem and we have to come
up with something which can then make it into PostgreSQL core.
how shall we proce
Alex Hunsaker writes:
> FWIW i just tested this with ~100 clients doing begin; ALTER TABLE
> test_lock ADD COLUMN commit; here is the timing. Is there some other
> concern that im not seeing?
The situation where someone quickly acquires the lock isn't much of an
issue, because they'll drop it a
Robert Haas writes:
> But that leads me to a question - does the existing HashAggregate code
> make any attempt to obey work_mem?
No.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www
Hi,
In pgsql/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-exec.c, there are two variables:
-
static int static_client_encoding = PG_SQL_ASCII;
static bool static_std_strings = false;
If enable_thread_safety is "no", how to insure libpq(dll/so) for
thread-safety?
thanks
wjzeng
--
Sent via pgsql-hacke
Hello,
I posted to the general list, and didn't receive any replies. Therefore, I am
trying this list now, hopefully this is the right mailing list for this type of
questions.
I am trying to compute the no of pages of a table. I am using the formula :
pages = ( columns width + 28) * no. o
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
Here's another idea: Let's modify xlog.c so that when the server asks for
WAL file X, and restore_command returns "not found", the server will not ask
for any WAL files >= X again (in that recovery session). Presumabl
Hi,
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is getting complicated, though. I guess it would be enough to
>>> document
>>> that you mustn't copy any extra files into pg_xlog i
After taking look at our monitoring system i think some hint about previous
SQL might be useful.
dbadb70db_nameWARNING1long transactions, duration >
2690min user=postgres pid=7887 waiting=False query= in transaction
Currently i have no idea what exactly did i kill without digg
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 14:40, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> Hrm on second thought I think your right. They only get the lock
> until the permission check, and I have a hard time seeing how someone
> can take real advantage of that. The owner that is trying to lock
> table should get the lock almost im
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 21:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, he can do that anyway via ALTER TABLE, which
> will happily take out AccessExclusiveLock before it checks any
> permissions. So I'm not seeing the point of risking unsafe behavior
> in LOCK TABLE.
I would rather fix ALTER TABLE to do som
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Moreover, I guess you don't even need to buffer tuples to aggregate by
>> different keys. What you have to do is only to prepare more than one
>> hash tables (, or set up sort order if the plan detects hash table is
>> too large to fit in th
51 matches
Mail list logo
