,--- I/Alex (Mon, 24 May 2010 12:25:18 -0400) *
| No equivalent of FETCH_COUNT is available at the libpq level, so I
| assume that the interface I am using is smart enough not to send
| gigabytes of data to FE.
|
| Where does the result set (GBs of data) reside after I call
| PQexecPrepared?
On May 25, 2010, at 3:21 , Tom Lane wrote:
> Florian Pflug writes:
>> The subtle point here is whether you consider the view from the "outside"
>> (in the sense of what a read-only transaction started at an arbitrary time
>> can or cannot observe), or from the "inside" (what updating transaction
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:37 AM, Joseph Adams
wrote:
> I started a wiki article for brainstorming the JSON API:
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/JSON_API_Brainstorm . I also made
> substantial changes to the draft of the API based on discussion here
> and on the #postgresql IRC channel.
>
> Is i
On May 25, 2010, at 12:18 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 25/05/10 13:03, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> On May 25, 2010, at 6:08 , Sam Vilain wrote:
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/sql-savepoint.html
>>>
>>> Lead us to believe that if you roll back to the same savepoint name
>>> twice in
KaiGai,
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
> OK, the attached patch reworks it according to the way.
I havn't looked at it yet, but the hook was added to ExecCheckRTPerms(),
not RTE. This was for two main reasons- it seemed simpler to us and it
meant that any security module implemente
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > Of course, if people want to suggest tests that just shouldn't be
> > included, I can go through and strip things out.
>
> Well... I'm a little reluctant to believe that we should have 3.3M of
> tests for the entire backend and 5M of tests just for
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> (2)
>>> pg_ctl -ms stop emits the following warning whenever there is the
>>> backup_label file in $PGDATA.
>>>
>>> WARNING: online backup mode is active
>>> Shutdown will not complete until pg_stop_backup() is called.
>>>
>>> Thi
On 25/05/10 13:03, Florian Pflug wrote:
On May 25, 2010, at 6:08 , Sam Vilain wrote:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/sql-savepoint.html
Lead us to believe that if you roll back to the same savepoint name
twice in a row, that you might start walking back through the
savepoints. I gues
Some performance problems have been reported on HS from two users: Erik
and Stefan.
The characteristics of those issues have been that performance is
* sporadically reduced, though mostly runs at full speed
* context switch storms reported as being associated
So we're looking for something that
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Hmm, OK, I think that makes sense. Would you care to propose a patch?
>
> Yep. Here is the patch.
>
> This patch distinguishes normal shutdown from unexpected exit, while the
> server is
On May 25, 2010, at 6:08 , Sam Vilain wrote:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/sql-savepoint.html
>
> Lead us to believe that if you roll back to the same savepoint name
> twice in a row, that you might start walking back through the
> savepoints. I guess I missed the note on ROLLBACK T
I started a wiki article for brainstorming the JSON API:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/JSON_API_Brainstorm . I also made
substantial changes to the draft of the API based on discussion here
and on the #postgresql IRC channel.
Is it alright to use the wiki for brainstorming, or should it stay on
(2010/05/25 12:19), Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
>>> We have two options; If the checker function takes the list of
>>> RangeTblEntry,
>>> it will be comfortable to ExecCheckRTPerms(), but not DoCopy().
On 24/05/10 22:49, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of vie may 21 17:57:35 -0400 2010:
Problem: currently, if your database has a large amount of "cold" data,
such as 350GB of 3-year-old sales transactions, in 8.4 vacuum no longer
needs to touch it thanks to the visibil
Joel Jacobson wrote:
> I applied all the changes on 9.0beta manually and then it compiled without
> any assertion failures.
>
> I also changed the oids to a different unused range, since the ones I used
> before had been taken in 9.0beta1.
Thanks, but you still need to test your patch:
- You
101 - 115 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
