On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 03:49:36PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > "Right now the sectors on the hard disk run clockwise, but I heard a rumor that
> > you can squeeze 0.2% more throughput by running them counterclockwise.
> > It's worth the effort. Recommended." (Gerry Pour
following is taken from postgresql-7.3.2/src/backend/storage/lmgr/readme:
"If we are setting a table level lock
both the blockId and tupleId (in an item pointer this is called
the position) are set to invalid, if it is a page level lock the
blockId is valid, while the tuple
following is taken from postgresql-7.3.2/src/backend/storage/lmgr/readme:
"If we are setting a table level lock
both the blockId and tupleId (in an item pointer this is called
the position) are set to invalid, if it is a page level lock the
blockId is valid, while the tuple
following is taken from postgresql-7.3.2/src/backend/storage/lmgr/readme:
"If we are setting a table level lock
both the blockId and tupleId (in an item pointer this is called
the position) are set to invalid, if it is a page level lock the
blockId is valid, while the tuple
following is taken from postgresql-7.3.2/src/backend/storage/lmgr/readme:
"If we are setting a table level lock
both the blockId and tupleId (in an item pointer this is called
the position) are set to invalid, if it is a page level lock the
blockId is valid, while the tuple
following is taken from postgresql-7.3.2/src/backend/storage/lmgr/readme:
"If we are setting a table level lock
both the blockId and tupleId (in an item pointer this is called
the position) are set to invalid, if it is a page level lock the
blockId is valid, while the tuple
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> "Right now the sectors on the hard disk run clockwise, but I heard a rumor that
> you can squeeze 0.2% more throughput by running them counterclockwise.
> It's worth the effort. Recommended." (Gerry Pourwelle)
In relation to your signature, I assume you have seen this joke
"Jenny -" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> how do we check whether blockId and tupleId of LOCK.tag are valid or
> invalid?
Look at how LockRelation and LockPage (in
src/backend/storage/lmgr/lmgr.c) set up the tags --- it might be clearer
then.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:15:07PM -0700, Jenny - wrote:
> following is taken from postgresql-7.3.2/src/backend/storage/lmgr/readme:
[...]
Is this on a crontab or something? It has gotten very annoying lately.
--
Alvaro Herrera ()
"Right now the sectors on the hard disk run clockwise, but I he
following is taken from postgresql-7.3.2/src/backend/storage/lmgr/readme:
"If we are setting a table level lock
both the blockId and tupleId (in an item pointer this is called
the position) are set to invalid, if it is a page level lock the
blockId is valid, while the tuple
following is taken from postgresql-7.3.2/src/backend/storage/lmgr/readme:
"If we are setting a table level lock
both the blockId and tupleId (in an item pointer this is called
the position) are set to invalid, if it is a page level lock the
blockId is valid, while the tuple
11 matches
Mail list logo
