Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Improve EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead by

2006-05-10 Thread Luke Lonergan
Nice one Martijn - we have immediate need for this, as one of our sizeable queries under experimentation took 3 hours without EXPLAIN ANALYZE, then over 20 hours with it... - Luke On 5/9/06 2:38 PM, "Martijn van Oosterhout" wrote: > On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 05:16:57PM -0400, Rocco Altier wrote

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation

2006-05-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > >> Well we did have a bug report by Peter Brant, and a test by him with the > >> patch that fixes it, so it seems it should be applied. The URLs I > >> posted had that information. > > > Correction. It only goes into 8.0.X and 8.1.X. CVS HEAD has a > >

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation

2006-05-10 Thread Qingqing Zhou
"Bruce Momjian" wrote > > > > Sorry for the late reply. Maybe more intensive tests are needed? Since > > this bug seems could not lead data corruption, we can wait till next bug > > report and let the user test it then decide to apply? > > Well we did have a bug report by Peter Brant, and a test

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation

2006-05-10 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: >> Well we did have a bug report by Peter Brant, and a test by him with the >> patch that fixes it, so it seems it should be applied. The URLs I >> posted had that information. > Correction. It only goes into 8.0.X and 8.1.X. CVS HEAD has a > rewritten file. That seems a

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation

2006-05-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
pgman wrote: > Qingqing Zhou wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 7 May 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Leave 'em alone. That code has zero field validation, and should > > > > certainly not get shipped until it's survived a beta-test cycle. > > > > > > Uh, this is a bug fix, and the patch

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation

2006-05-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
Qingqing Zhou wrote: > > > On Sun, 7 May 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > Leave 'em alone. That code has zero field validation, and should > > > certainly not get shipped until it's survived a beta-test cycle. > > > > Uh, this is a bug fix, and the patch I am asking about is not the Win

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation

2006-05-10 Thread Qingqing Zhou
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Leave 'em alone. That code has zero field validation, and should > > certainly not get shipped until it's survived a beta-test cycle. > > Uh, this is a bug fix, and the patch I am asking about is not the Win32 > semaphore reimplementation but a m