From: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Rieback Melanie <melanie(at)cs(dot)vu(dot)nl> |
Cc: | Brad <postgresql(dot)org(at)likethesky(dot)com>, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Displaying current query - eliminating <IDLE> |
Date: | 2005-10-25 01:26:48 |
Message-ID: | 20051025012648.GA32544@winnie.fuhr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:31:00PM +0200, Rieback Melanie wrote:
> > I would imagine there'd be a fairly simple tweak that could be done to
> > the source, assuming Melanie wants to build the database (and doesn't
> > mind forking off from future versions
>
> I wasn't planning on forking off new builds of Postgres. I am actually
> searching for a solution that works with existing databases.
Could you tell us what problem you're trying to solve? You've
said what you're trying to do but not why -- all we've seen so
far is:
> I warned you that my request is a strange one, but this is more of
> a puzzle, that happens to have a real use for me. It also doesn't
> have to be 100% repeatable. 50% or even 25% repeatable would be
> good enough for me, as long as it works a significant percentage
> of the time.
What are you trying to do that has a real use but that can be
unreliable most of the time?
--
Michael Fuhr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-25 03:25:22 | Re: bit map indexes in postgres |
Previous Message | phil campaigne | 2005-10-24 22:12:22 | Installation problem |