Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
This patch resolves this new found bug and fixes some of the other
debugging output to be more consistent.
Please apply to both HEAD and the 7.4 branch.
Bruce, if you'd like, I'll apply this one. I plan to test it out tonight
or tomorrow.
Thanks,
Joe
-
In working through a pg_autovacuum problem with Joe Conway (which turned
out to be the same problem reported by Cott Lang which the previous
patch resolved) a new bug was uncovered when running with a debug level
of greater than 1.
This patch resolves this new found bug and fixes some of the other
Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I see we still are dumping CREATE TABLE using WITH OIDS, rather than
> > using the more portable SET default_with_oids. This needs fixing.
>
> Yes, I know. If you're eager for it, please consider implementing it
> yourself.
Or I
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see we still are dumping CREATE TABLE using WITH OIDS, rather than
> using the more portable SET default_with_oids. This needs fixing.
Yes, I know. If you're eager for it, please consider implementing it
yourself.
-Neil
---(
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If I remember correctly, you didn't like the index routines reading the
> > tuple information, or something like that, but there was a performance
> > benefit for duplicate keys, so I think we should re-investigate this.
>
> I don't s
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I remember correctly, you didn't like the index routines reading the
> tuple information, or something like that, but there was a performance
> benefit for duplicate keys, so I think we should re-investigate this.
I don't see the actual patch either i
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Where are we on this? It seems like a win to me.
>
> I thought it was a bad idea, although I no longer remember the details.
If I remember correctly, you didn't like the index routines reading the
tuple information, or something li
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Where are we on this? It seems like a win to me.
I thought it was a bad idea, although I no longer remember the details.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't '
I see we still are dumping CREATE TABLE using WITH OIDS, rather than
using the more portable SET default_with_oids. This needs fixing.
---
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:07:40PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrot
Where are we on this? It seems like a win to me.
---
Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:32:10 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> comparetup_index() com
> If your fix works, I will change the Win32-specific code to use open()
> and fdopen(). The only advantage to the old code was that it would
> release locks, then go into a rename loop, which is horid, and we need
> to avoid the loop.
Ah, I see. Should've been obvious you had that in mind actua
Dear patchers,
As I see that my previous attempt has met a lot of reactions;-)
Please find attached my SECOND patch proposition which sets an initial
"hint" infrastructure into the sql parser. At the time it is pretty simple
as I'm not yet convinced yet that I'll need a "hint stack" or something
Claudio Natoli wrote:
>
> > main file. WIth Claudio's fix, this isn't necessary.
>
> Bruce, are you sure this is true? The fix is only for files than are
> open()'d, not fopen()'d (as per AllocateFile).
If your fix works, I will change the Win32-specific code to use open()
and fdopen(). The on
13 matches
Mail list logo
