On May24, 2012, at 19:25 , Robert Haas wrote:
FWIW, I'm inclined to think that you should NOT be able to create a
row that references an invisible row. You might end up with that
situation anyway, because we don't know what the semantics of the
security policy are: rows might become visible
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Sergey Koposov kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 24 May 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
Not sure. It might be some other LWLock, but it's hard to tell which
one from the information provided.
If you could tell what's the best way to find out the info
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:16:28PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 24 May 2012 22:57, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, item moved down. We have not have bug fix designation. You have
a suggestion?
I assumed you were going to put it beside the other compatibility note
relating
On Thu, 24 May 2012, Jeff Janes wrote:
Add
#define LWLOCK_STATS
near the top of:
src/backend/storage/lmgr/lwlock.c
and recompile and run a reduced-size workload. When the processes
exits, they will dump a lot of data about LWLock usage to the logfile.
Generally the LWLock with the most blocks
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2012-05-24 at 11:36 -0600, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
Doh, it is indeed there in 5.16.0, looks like it got added in 5.10
:-(. (I was on the wrong branch...).
It's in ppport.h.
Don't see any reason not to then. +1
101 - 105 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
