Re: [PATCHES] O_DIRECT for WAL writes

On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 10:37 +1000, Neil Conway wrote: > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 11:49 -0700, Mary Edie Meredith wrote: > > My understanding is that O_DIRECT means "direct" as in "no buffering by > > the OS" which implies that if you write from your buffer, the write is > > not going to return unless

Re: [PATCHES] O_DIRECT for WAL writes

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 09:43:13 -0700, Mary Edie Meredith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Looking at this from another angle, is there really any way that you can > say a write is truly guaranteed in the event of a failure? I think in > the end to be safe, you cannot. That's why (and I'm not t

[PATCHES] WAL bypass for CTAS

I enclose a complete patch for avoiding WAL usage for CREATE TABLE AS SELECT, when not in archive mode (PITR). The main use case for this is large BI environments that create summary tables or prejoined tables, though there are many general applications. There is no user interface for this. The sp

[PATCHES] Unused variable in explain.c

Hackers, This trivial patch removes the unused variable printCost from ExplainState. This variable is defined to true initially and never changed; it's only clutter, I think. And I've never seen EXPLAIN output without the cost. -- Alvaro Herrera () "And as an added bonus, now my computer goes

Re: [PATCHES] Unused variable in explain.c

Alvaro Herrera wrote: This trivial patch removes the unused variable printCost from ExplainState. This variable is defined to true initially and never changed; it's only clutter, I think. And I've never seen EXPLAIN output without the cost. Applied, thanks. -Neil ---

Re: [PATCHES] psql: \d+ show tablespace of indices

"Neil Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 22:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Does that look better or worse to you? > > I agree the patch's format is a bit off. What about > > "mi" btree (i), tablespace "testspace" > > "PRIMARY KEY" is currently separated from the rest of

Re: [PATCHES] psql: \d+ show tablespace of indices

Qingqing Zhou wrote: > > "Neil Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 22:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Does that look better or worse to you? > > > > I agree the patch's format is a bit off. What about > > > > "mi" btree (i), tablespace "testspace" > > > > "PRIMARY KEY

Re: [PATCHES] Oracle date type compat. functions: next_day, last_day,

David Fetter wrote: On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 05:41:46PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: My next patch is implementation least and greatest functions. If will possible I prefere contrib for it, but it's inpossible. ... BTW, the thing about least() and greatest() (basically the row-wise versions of