Josh Berkus wrote:
> Overall, you're missing the point: there are workarounds for all
> of these things now. However, they are *workarounds*, which means
> that they are awkward, expensive, and/or hard to administrate;
> having predicate locks would make things much easier.
Well, if some form
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On tor, 2010-08-05 at 14:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Huh? The functionality proposed for removal is only that of omitting
>> an explicit delimiter argument for string_agg(). Since the default
>> value (an empty string) doesn't seem to be the right thing all that
>> of
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> There's a little problem with EXECUTE USING when the parameters are of
> type unknown (going back to 8.4 where EXECUTE USING was introduced):
> do $$
> BEGIN
>EXECUTE 'SELECT to_date($1, $2)' USING '17-DEC-80', 'DD-MON-YY';
> END;
> $$;
> ERROR: failed to find c
On 08/05/2010 05:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
There's a little problem with EXECUTE USING when the parameters are of
type unknown (going back to 8.4 where EXECUTE USING was introduced):
do $$
BEGIN
EXECUTE 'SELECT to_date($1, $2)' USING '17-DEC-80', 'DD-MON-YY';
END;
On Aug4, 2010, at 13:58 , Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Aug3, 2010, at 21:16 , Greg Smith wrote:
>>> That was a leftover of the trimming and comment skipping logic, which my
>>> patch moves to process_command.
>>
>> I think there's still a trimming error here--line 195 of the new patch is
>> now re
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 08/05/2010 05:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This example doesn't seem terribly compelling. Why would you bother
>> using USING with constants?
> In a more complex example you might use $1 in more than one place in the
> query.
Well, that's better than no justification,
On 8/5/10 1:59 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Oh, and if deadlocks are that broken, it's a bit scary that we have
> let that go. Is it the problem that technically intractable?
Yes; it's a major project. Our detector works pretty well for deadlocks
which are 2-process locks or even several processe
Josh Berkus writes:
> Yes; it's a major project. Our detector works pretty well for deadlocks
> which are 2-process locks or even several processes all locking against
> the same first process. However, triangular and quadralateral deadlocks
> (which I've seen more than once) it completely cannot
> Hm? Please explain what you're talking about.
Transaction A locks 1 and wants a lock on 2
Transaction B locks 2 and wants a lock on 3
Transaction C locks 3 and wants a lock on 1
I've never had the deadlock detector successfully deal with the above.
Let alone a 4-way.
> Not sure I believe thi
Hi Pavel,
On 02/08/10 09:21, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
2010/8/2 Mike Fowler:
Hi Pavel,
Currently your patch isn't applying to head, from the looks of things a
function signature has changed. Can you update your patch please?
yes - see attachment
Thanks, the new patch applies cleanly. H
Robert Haas writes:
> [ BackendRelFileNode patch ]
One thing that I find rather distressing about this is the 25% bloat
in sizeof(SharedInvalidationMessage). Couldn't we avoid that? Is it
really necessary to *ever* send an SI message for a backend-local rel?
I agree that one needs to send relc
On 06/08/10 10:49, Josh Berkus wrote:
Hm? Please explain what you're talking about.
Transaction A locks 1 and wants a lock on 2
Transaction B locks 2 and wants a lock on 3
Transaction C locks 3 and wants a lock on 1
I've never had the deadlock detector successfully deal with the abov
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 03:49:05PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Hm? Please explain what you're talking about.
>
> Transaction A locks 1 and wants a lock on 2
> Transaction B locks 2 and wants a lock on 3
> Transaction C locks 3 and wants a lock on 1
>
> I've never had the deadlock detector succ
Josh Berkus writes:
>> Hm? Please explain what you're talking about.
> Transaction A locks 1 and wants a lock on 2
> Transaction B locks 2 and wants a lock on 3
> Transaction C locks 3 and wants a lock on 1
> I've never had the deadlock detector successfully deal with the above.
> Let alone a 4
>> I've never had the deadlock detector successfully deal with the above.
>> Let alone a 4-way.
> Hm. I have seen 5way deadlocks getting resolved just recently. I can
> find the relevant if you find it interesting, but I doubt it is.
Ah, I didn't know that it was even *supposed* to resolve
larger
Dear All,
I have seen a lively discussion about the DO NOTING action in MERGE command.
And, I think most people want it. So it will be added to my next patch.
Before the implementation, I still have some questions to confirm:
1. If we have a DO NOTHING action specified, it should be the last WHE
It seems suspicious to me that LockSharedObject() calls
AcceptInvalidationMessges() and LockDatabaseObject() does not. Since
the only caller of LockSharedObject() at present is
AcquireDeletionLock(), I'm not sure there's an observable bug here at
the moment, but then again, I'm also not sure there
Excerpts from Mike Fowler's message of mar jun 29 06:37:28 -0400 2010:
> After seeing some other posts in the last couple of days, I realised I
> hadn't documented the function in the SGML. I have now done so, and
> added a couple of tests with XML literals. Please find the patch
> attached. No
2010/8/6 Mike Fowler :
> Hi Pavel,
>
> On 02/08/10 09:21, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> 2010/8/2 Mike Fowler:
>>>
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>
>>> Currently your patch isn't applying to head, from the looks of things a
>>> function signature has changed. Can you update your patch please?
>>>
>>
>> ye
On 08/05/2010 06:56 PM, Mike Fowler wrote:
SELECT
xslt_process('cim30400'::text,
$$http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform";
version="1.0">
[snip]
$$::text, 'n1=v1,n2=v2,n3=v3,n4=v4,n5=v5'::text)
I haven't been paying attention to this, so sorry if this has been
discussed before, but
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pedranmarcksld/message
vielmehr an das Vorhandensein eines
{688 Voraussetzung fur die Befreiung verlorener Gebiete}
wenn auch noch so kleinen Restes dieses Volkes und Staates, der, im B
2010/8/6 Andrew Dunstan :
>
>
> On 08/05/2010 06:56 PM, Mike Fowler wrote:
>>
>> SELECT
>> xslt_process('cim30400'::text,
>> $$http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform";
>> version="1.0">
>>
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> $$::text, 'n1=v1,n2=v2,n3=v3,n4=v4,n5=v5'::text)
>>
>>
>
> I haven't been paying attention to
On tis, 2010-07-27 at 16:33 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> * Do we already have it?
>
> Not really. There are kludges to accomplish these things, but
> they're available mostly in the sense that a general-purpose
> language allows you to write code to do anything a Turing machine
>
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:57:37AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2010/8/6 Andrew Dunstan :
> > On 08/05/2010 06:56 PM, Mike Fowler wrote:
> >> SELECT
> >> xslt_process('cim30400'::text,
> >> $$http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform";
> >> version="1.0">
> >>
> >>
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> $$::text, 'n1=v
2010/8/6 David Fetter :
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:57:37AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2010/8/6 Andrew Dunstan :
>> > On 08/05/2010 06:56 PM, Mike Fowler wrote:
>> >> SELECT
>> >> xslt_process('cim30400'::text,
>> >> $$http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform";
>> >> version="1.0">
>> >>
>> >>
>>
101 - 125 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
