From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Tim Perdue <tperdue(at)valinux(dot)com> |
Cc: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Article on MySQL vs. Postgres |
Date: | 2000-07-05 08:46:52 |
Message-ID: | 3962F5FC.B7C8E815@tm.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tim Perdue wrote:
>
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > > Further, I have had situations where postgres actually had DUPLICATE
> > > ids in a primary key field, probably due to some abort or other nasty
> > > situation in the middle of a commit. How did I recover from That?
> > > Well, I had to run a count(*) next to each ID and select out the rows
> > > where there was more than one of each "unique" id, then reinsert those
> > > rows and drop and rebuild the indexes and reset the sequences.
> >
> > Odd, were you using transactions here, or transactionless?
>
> Does it matter? I suppose it was my programming error that somehow I got
> duplicate primary keys in a table in the database where that should be
> totally impossible under any circumstance? Another stupid
> transactionless program I'm sure.
>
> At any rate, it appears that the main problem I had with postgres (the
> 8K tuple limit) is being fixed and I will mention that in my writeup.
Currently (as of 7.0.x) you could use BLKSIZE=32K + lztext datatype and
get text fields about 64-128K depending on data if you are desperately
after big textfields.
-----------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-07-05 08:55:11 | Re: Article on MySQL vs. Postgres |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-07-05 08:39:39 | Re: Article on MySQL vs. Postgres |