Mark,A model that intended to try and guarantee uniqueness would provide aUUID generation service for the entire host, that was not specific to
any application, or database, possibly accessible via the loopbackaddress. It would ensure that at any given time, either the time isnew, or the sequence
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 12:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Also, I'm not sold that the concept is even useful. Apparently the idea
is to offload the expense of taking periodic base backups from a master
server, by instead backing up a PITR slave's fileset --- which is fine.
Good. That's the key
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes:
Great, I have added this to the bottom of the AIX FAQ. Thanks.
It seems to me that this also warrants an entry in the release notes.
I'd think that an entry in the Source Code Changes section,
immediately after the Reduce libraries linked into the
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 15:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
AFAICT it's just junk. It happens to be the input times
MAX_RANDOM_VALUE, but what use is that? I wonder if we shouldn't
change the function to return VOID
I agree. Given how soon we want to get an 8.2
Hi everyone,
After spending several days reading PostgreSQL source code (and another
couple of days coding), I've managed to come up with some alpha code
that attempts to implement non-recursive WITH common table expressions.
Having got this far, I feel that I need to ask for advice from some
Chris Browne wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes:
Great, I have added this to the bottom of the AIX FAQ. Thanks.
It seems to me that this also warrants an entry in the release notes.
I'd think that an entry in the Source Code Changes section,
immediately after the Reduce
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
But why in the world would you want to stop the slave to do it? ISTM
we would want to arrange things so that you can copy the slave's files
while it continues replicating, just as with a standard base backup.
You can do that,
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An advantage to being able to stop the server is that you could have one
server processing backups for multiple PostgreSQL clusters by going
through them 1 (or more likely, 2, 4, etc) at a time, essentially
providing N+1 capability.
Why wouldn't you
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:26:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An advantage to being able to stop the server is that you could have one
server processing backups for multiple PostgreSQL clusters by going
through them 1 (or more likely, 2, 4, etc) at a time,
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My thought is that in many envoronments it would take much beefier
hardware to support N postmasters running simultaneously than to cycle
through them periodically bringing the backups up-to-date.
How you figure that? The cycling approach will require
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 05:50:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My thought is that in many envoronments it would take much beefier
hardware to support N postmasters running simultaneously than to cycle
through them periodically bringing the backups
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ok, here is the promised docs for the advisory locks.
Applied with light editorialization.
some quick notes here: this is my first non trivial patch (albeit only
documentation) and i am a complete docbook novice.
Not bad for a first try --- I fixed a
Mark Cave-Ayland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My main issue at the moment is that the code in transformFromClauseItem
seems a terrible hack, mainly because the grammar returns each string
within the FROM clause as a RangeVar, and transformFromClauseItem
assumes that each RangeVar represents a
13 matches
Mail list logo
