> Where have you found this?
>
> I've been looking for that but have not found it. I run a rh9 system, do
> you have something newer? Maybe I have just not looked in the right place
> in the documentation.
Glibc 2.3 implements both reentrant and a thread local locale APIs.
The reentrant API pr
(2^32) operations need long long support to implement in a
straightforward fashion.
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
me
erious
solution needs to change the internal format to use a larger base, as Tom
suggested.
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Butler wrote:
>
> Using the head branch, when I execute the following in psql on Redhat 6.2
> i386, the postmaster process dies gives an error message about corrupted
> shared memory:
I just updated to REL7_1 and recompiled and the problem has gone away.
-
ect bug1(5);
---end---
Any ideas?
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Mark Butler wrote:
> I did several tests with functions designed to sum the number 12345 a million
> times. The results are as follows (Pentium II 450, Redhat 6.2):
>
> Postgres PL/PGSQL original numeric:14.8 seconds
> Postgres PL/PGSQL modified numeric:11.0 seconds
>
ber: 2.0 seconds
The modified Postgres numeric type is the original source code modified to use
a 32 digit NumericVar attribute digit buffer that eliminates palloc()/pfree()
calls when ndigits < 32.
Surely those are performance differences worth considering...
- Mark Butler
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Mark Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Surely if we have an write exclusive table lock we can rewrite tuples
> > in place rather than creating new versions with its corresponding 2x
> > space requirement.
>
> Nyet. Consider transact
. I certainly don't have any hard
evidence yet. Thanks for the pointer.
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
ons up to DECIMAL(18). Intermediate results could
be stored using a 128 bit format to avoid loss of precision.
Any comments?
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
quot; type, so a "DOUBLE" synonym for it shouldn't make much of a
difference. Right?
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
3. Done
}
Does this sound reasonable? Also, is anyone working on ALTER TABLE DROP
COLUMN right now?
Speaking of which, couldn't we make it so that UPDATES and DELETES running
under an exclusive table lock do an inline vacuum?
- Mark Butler
---(end of broa
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
> Yes, good. Do we want this in 7.1.0 ? Seems, yes :-(
I agree this change is very good idea, but 7.2 is probably a better target.
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Thanks. I didn't realize the need to move the DOUBLE token from the TokenId to
the ColId production. Will this patch be integrated into the head branch?
- Mark Butler
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Mark Butler writes:
>
> > I was trying to make a minor change today to the
les for application portability testing or emulate Oracle's outer join
syntax, as a couple of examples.
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
ranslation project, I am amazed that you were able to get a grammar as
complex as PostgreSQL to work without major difficulty.
I was wondering about what the sense of the list would be to someday accepting
a rewrite using a hand-coded LL(k) recursive descent parser. Anyone?
- M
There are several ways to solve the problem:
1. Convert to common numeric format for all numbers, ala Oracle
2. Promote for comparison during the index scan
3. Promote index boundary values for comparison in query planner only
Convert back to index column type for actual scan
Option 1 doesn't
the original query predicate by substituting the maximum and
minimum allowed values of the column type as appropriate.
I have not looked at the source code in detail yet, but I believe the basic
idea is sound.
- Mark Butler
Note: Oracle avoids this whole problem for numeric types by using a com
tain semantic differences between different representations of the same
number. (Oracle certainly doesn't)
Any comments?
- Mark Butler
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
19 matches
Mail list logo
