From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: More schema queries |
Date: | 2002-05-21 17:29:16 |
Message-ID: | 21818.1022002156@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> Yes, but when I read this I realised that I forget to 'make clean'
> before rebuilding. Having done that I then found that gdb eats about
> 100Mb of memory and 50% of cpu without actually displaying itself until
> killed 10 minutes later. I tried this twice - I guess that gdb under
> cygwin has trouble with large exe's as my machine should handle it
> (PIII-M 1.13GHz, 512Mb).
That's annoying. gdb is quite memory-hungry when dealing with big
programs, but as long as you're not running out of memory or swap it
should work. AFAIK anyway. I remember having to compile only parts
of a big program with debug support, years ago on a machine that was
pretty small and slow by current standards.
If you can't get gdb to work then another possibility is the low-tech
approach: add some debugging printf's to RangeVarGetCreationNamespace.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Manfred Koizar | 2002-05-21 17:30:17 | Re: Per tuple overhead, cmin, cmax, OID |
Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2002-05-21 17:24:41 | Re: Redhat 7.3 time manipulation bug |