PostgreSQL

Hi. I have a server with Ubuntu 22.04.1 LTS and PostgreSQL 14. I was thinking it uses PostgreSQL 14.7 and I want about to upgrade to PostgreSQL 14.8 in July (my policy regarding PostgreSQL is to upgrade to it about two months after it's minor release (major release I upgrade once every ye

Re: MySQL / PostgreSQL limitation

on etc >> due to shortage or RAM and/or CPU power. >> >> Lets say I have a machine with 512GB RAM, 20 cores, 20TB disks. Such a >> machine should handle a huge load without any issue. With such a machine, >> theoretically, can a single MySQL / PostgreSQL handle such a l

Re: MySQL / PostgreSQL limitation

ge load without any issue. With such a machine, > theoretically, can a single MySQL / PostgreSQL handle such a load? (few > hundred thousands connected users at once). > > > It really depends on *what* you do, like has been said, ACID consideration, and of course, the ratio between read/write oper

Re: MySQL / PostgreSQL limitation

; help you at all. > I left these questions to our database experts and external support (Fujitsu Australia provides paid PostgresQL support by PostgresQL core contributors: http://www.fastware.com.au/index.html). I trust that they looked (and still looking) at all the possibilities. I ju

Re: MySQL / PostgreSQL limitation

etc due to shortage or RAM and/or CPU power. > > > Lets say I have a machine with 512GB RAM, 20 cores, 20TB > disks. Such a machine should handle a huge load without any > issue. With such a machine, theoretically, can a single > MySQL / PostgreSQL handle suc

Re: MySQL / PostgreSQL limitation

ge load without any issue. With such a machine, > theoretically, can a single MySQL / PostgreSQL handle such a load? (few > hundred thousands connected users at once). > I can't answer these specific questions directly. We have a chubby (2TB right now, and growing) PostgresQL database on Hita

Re: MySQL / PostgreSQL limitation

0TB disks. Such a > machine should handle a huge load without any issue. With such a > machine, theoretically, can a single MySQL / PostgreSQL handle such a > load? (few hundred thousands connected users at once). > Please note that there is a difference between the CPU and number of c

MySQL / PostgreSQL limitation

to memory? processor? I know that many uses replication etc due to shortage or RAM and/or CPU power. Lets say I have a machine with 512GB RAM, 20 cores, 20TB disks. Such a machine should handle a huge load without any issue. With such a machine, theoretically, can a single MySQL / PostgreSQL han

Re: PostgreSQL Replication substancial

2010/3/25 Boaz Yahav(berber) : > Are there any PG specialist on this list that have substantial, hands on, > experience with PostgreSQL Replication? Which postgreslql replication are you referring to? There are multiple ways and a new built-in one is coming up in PostgresQL 9.0 (fka 8.5)

PostgreSQL Replication substancial

Are there any PG specialist on this list that have substantial, hands on, experience with PostgreSQL Replication? ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il

Re: replicating postgresql database?

Try google 'slony postgresql' Never used it myself but can translate slony as elephants in plural :) On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:39 AM, Amos Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm moving very sensitive production servers to a new environment and >

replicating postgresql database?

Hi, I'm moving very sensitive production servers to a new environment and am looking at ways to copy their databases without down time. We have one MySQL database and one PostgresQL database. For MySQL I found the following instructions which were exactly what I imagined I should use

Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

On 21/11/2007, Imri Zvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You get redundancy even with two nodes, BUT - You're missing the point… > > Re-read your original email, notice the line saying "a NDB cluster needs at > least three nodes.". Well, it doesn't *NEED* at least 3 nodes to function – > the *technica

RE: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

ractical* minimum is obviously 2. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yonah Russ Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:26 PM To: Imri Zvik Cc: linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il Subject: Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster? I believe the original inqu

Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

On 21/11/2007, Yonah Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 20, 2007 12:52 PM, Amos Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 20/11/2007, Yonah Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 20, 2007 7:32 AM, Amos Shapira < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 20/11/20

Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

On Nov 20, 2007 12:52 PM, Amos Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 20/11/2007, Yonah Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 20, 2007 7:32 AM, Amos Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 20/11/2007, Yonah Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > ..snip.. > > > > > > Anot

Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

on-ready (at least last time I've checked). > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Yonah Russ > > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 6:53 AM > > To: Amos Shapira > > Cc: linux-il@cs.hu

Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

fore a decision could be made. -Original Message- From: Cyril SCETBON [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:13 PM To: Imri Zvik Cc: Yonah Russ; linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il Subject: Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster? Imri Zvik wrote: Hi, The MySQL clu

Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

> > into pgpool and pgpool II for a new project. > > > > Why is pgpool relevant here? It more kind of a "reverse proxy fo > > postgres" in that it'll hide server failure by auto-connecting to > > another server. Does it handle data synchronisation as well?

RE: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

Imri Zvik > Cc: Yonah Russ; linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > Subject: Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster? > > > > Imri Zvik wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The MySQL cluster can run perfectly on one physical node. > > > > The 3 nodes you're referring

Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

On 20/11/2007, Imri Zvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > The MySQL cluster can run perfectly on one physical node. > > The 3 nodes you're referring to are at least 1 management node, and at > least 1 API ("mysqld") node, and at least 1 data/storage ("ndbd") node. > They can all reside on the s

Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

which announces a release in the next 2 months. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yonah Russ Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 6:53 AM To: Amos Shapira Cc: linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il Subject: Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQ

RE: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

s.huji.ac.il > Subject: Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster? > > Hi, > > AFAIK MySQL cluster requires using the NDB engine which is not 100% > compatible with MYISAM, etc. The more recent a version you have the > better off you will be but there was on

Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

pgpool and pgpool II for a new project. > > Why is pgpool relevant here? It more kind of a "reverse proxy fo > postgres" in that it'll hide server failure by auto-connecting to > another server. Does it handle data synchronisation as well? > >From the pgpool II

Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

DRBD for MySQL synchronization as well to reduce the configuration complexity. Any thoughts on that? I'm afraid that I'll have to convert my PostgresQL web service to use MySQL instead just to reduce the clutter... Thanks, --Amos

Re: MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

ster-slave solution > (i.e. only one server serving while the other is in "hot standby"), > but if it's possible to take advantage of both servers at the same > time and double our capacity then it would be very useful too. > > I also have a small web service using Postgres

MySQL Cluster for HA? What about PostgresQL PGCluster?

ll web service using PostgresQL (8.1.9, from CentOS packages) on the same server which will also have to be replicated. What do people usually use to do this? Is PGCluster a practical option? Thanks, --Amos = To unsubscribe, send mail

[Job Offer] Postgresql expert needed

Hi list. The company I work for needs a consultant to help us optimize postgresql for our application, and to help us set up replication and stuff like that. We are not offering full time employment (at this time) and we'd prefer to work with a freelance that is "osek murshe"

Re: MySQL License (was: Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

Quoting guy keren, from the post of Sun, 25 Feb: > > Didn't MySQL used to be plublished under dual licenses? either GPL or > > "embedded"? > > it still is. however, the other license is commercial - i.e. you need to > pay $$$ for that. Choo, You've been in this business a long time, I expect more

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On Sunday, 25 בFebruary 2007 16:39, Tzahi Fadida wrote: > On Sunday 25 February 2007 16:09, Alex Dover wrote: > > As far as I can tell , MySQL is not free for commercial distribution. > > Correct me if I'm wrong (am I reading MySQL license wrong?) > And, PostgreSQL is free

MySQL License (was: Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Ira Abramov wrote: > Quoting Tzahi Fadida, from the post of Sun, 25 Feb: > > On Sunday 25 February 2007 16:09, Alex Dover wrote: > > > There was a question about business perspective of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL... > > > As far as I can tell , MySQL

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

Quoting Tzahi Fadida, from the post of Sun, 25 Feb: > On Sunday 25 February 2007 16:09, Alex Dover wrote: > > There was a question about business perspective of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL... > > As far as I can tell , MySQL is not free for commercial distribution. It's > &g

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On Sunday 25 February 2007 16:09, Alex Dover wrote: > There was a question about business perspective of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL... > As far as I can tell , MySQL is not free for commercial distribution. It's > only free if you use it yourself or as part of some Open Source > distri

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

There was a question about business perspective of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL... As far as I can tell , MySQL is not free for commercial distribution. It's only free if you use it yourself or as part of some Open Source distribution. Correct me if I'm wrong (am I reading MySQL license wrong?) -Alex

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

Quoting Amos Shapira, from the post of Thu, 22 Feb: > > Yes but these were all practically identical disks - Guy's response was > about my idea to mirror a RAM disk with a regular magnetic media disk, which > would mean that that this volume will be as slow as the magnetic media, so > loosing the

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

ers to the mailing list archives which can be accessed at PostgreSQL main site. Yes, thank you. I've looked at steeleye lifekeeper too, the sole reason I haven't posted back to the list was exactly that - A closed source, propriety product; seemed to be a bit OT for the thread, OTOH

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On 23/02/07, Ez-Aton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes and no. It will be as slow as any common harddrive for write operations, but it will be extremely fast for read operations. Now, what is your expected usage profile? It's in the context of the thread - this RAM disk was suggested in order

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

PostgreSQL main site. On Monday 19 February 2007 05:26, Amos Shapira wrote: -- Regards, Tzahi. -- Tzahi Fadida Blog: http://tzahi.blogsite.org | Home Site: http://tzahi.webhop.info WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  see at http://members.lycos.co.uk/my2nis/spamwarning.html

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

Yes and no. It will be as slow as any common harddrive for write operations, but it will be extremely fast for read operations. Now, what is your expected usage profile? Ez. Amos Shapira wrote: On 21/02/07, *Ira Abramov* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Quoting

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On 21/02/07, Ira Abramov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Quoting guy keren, from the post of Wed, 21 Feb: > > what? what a mirror is as _slow_ as the _slower_ disk. an I/O > request to the mirror, gets a response only after its clones were > written into both legs of the mirror - not as soon as o

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

Quoting guy keren, from the post of Wed, 21 Feb: > > what? what a mirror is as _slow_ as the _slower_ disk. an I/O > request to the mirror, gets a response only after its clones were > written into both legs of the mirror - not as soon as one was written. I once did some benchmarks for a cl

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On 21/02/07, guy keren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: what? what a mirror is as _slow_ as the _slower_ disk. an I/O request to the mirror, gets a response only after its clones were written into both legs of the mirror - not as soon as one was written. Yes I see it now (after some more diggin

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

Tzahi Fadida wrote: On Tuesday 20 February 2007 14:37, Maxim Veksler wrote: What about redundancy. I need an active-active cluster for databases to get the 5*'9's up time euphoria. Is there an open source database that can do that? Planing to? Tried to? PostgreSQL can do that and i

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

facility in PostgreSQL 8+. I am not an expert on this subject but IIRC, imagine you backupped the database at 8am. At 9am the database crashed. The data at the database is too corrupt due to various insane reasons you can conjure in your mind. However, the transaction log surv

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

hat? Planing to? Tried to? PostgreSQL can do that and i am betting MySQL can too. Though not alone. You need an additional product that works with them. Are you sure you need multi-master (aka active-active) in order to achieve 5 9's? From what I gather multi-master is important for scalabili

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On 21/02/07, Tzahi Fadida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 21 February 2007 01:39, Amos Shapira wrote: > So far my searches came to a conclusion that PostgresQL doesn't support > shared disk, at least not out of the box. What do you mean by shared disk? I meant "

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

le specific, but it has really low I/O for > > anything else you try to do with it. it's more like "raw device you can > > look at and back up via the VFS", and it's useless if you are not > > running a cluster. > > OK, thanks for the explanation. It stil

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On 21/02/07, Tzahi Fadida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Depends. Sometimes queries takes longer. However it is not the point. The reason for backupping once in a while is for PITR - point in time recovery which is a new facility in PostgreSQL 8+. I am not an expert on this subject bu

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On Wednesday 21 February 2007 01:43, Amos Shapira wrote: > On 20/02/07, Tzahi Fadida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In PostgreSQL they don't even do the caching (more or less), they let the > > OS > > to do it. This is a common question and the claim of the PostgreS

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On 20/02/07, Tzahi Fadida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In PostgreSQL they don't even do the caching (more or less), they let the OS to do it. This is a common question and the claim of the PostgreSQL dev community is that the added benefit of a raw fs will be negligable. I for one

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On 20/02/07, Tzahi Fadida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Did you also compare this to Oracle books? The problem is that PostgreSQL is an overkill for the average joe developer. MySQL is simpler, faster, for the Why is PostgresQL an overkill? It looks just as easy to setup as mysql - &q

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

explanation. It still sounds like Oracle are trying to minimize the penalty for going through the file system layer, tough. does PostgreSQL even support running two instances of the DB on two separate nodes over GFS?! I don't think it does. that's available only from the big guns like

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On Tuesday 20 February 2007 14:37, Maxim Veksler wrote: > What about redundancy. I need an active-active cluster for databases > to get the 5*'9's up time euphoria. Is there an open source database > that can do that? Planing to? Tried to? PostgreSQL can do that and i am be

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On 2/19/07, Tzahi Fadida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Monday 19 February 2007 11:58, Israel Shikler wrote: > Hi , > > I see your post here concerning PostgresQL. > We are using RedHat & Mysql. > Is there any advantages using PostgresQL over Mysql? There are advantages

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On Tuesday 20 February 2007 01:48, Amos Shapira wrote: > > I'm still digging postgresql.org and last time I went to a (large) book > shop I saw an entire section (about 6-7 shelves) about MySQL but not a > single book about PostgresQL. Did you also compare this to Oracle book

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On Tuesday 20 February 2007 01:53, Amos Shapira wrote: > On 19/02/07, Tzahi Fadida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday 19 February 2007 05:26, Amos Shapira wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Is it possible to configure PostgresQL to use raw disk parti

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

r anything else you try to do with it. it's more like "raw device you can look at and back up via the VFS", and it's useless if you are not running a cluster. does PostgreSQL even support running two instances of the DB on two separate nodes over GFS?! I don't think it does. th

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On 19/02/07, Tzahi Fadida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Monday 19 February 2007 05:26, Amos Shapira wrote: > Hello, > > Is it possible to configure PostgresQL to use raw disk partition, like > Oracle does? > If not - is there any recommendation for favourite filesyst

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On 19/02/07, Ira Abramov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Quoting Amos Shapira, from the post of Mon, 19 Feb: > Hello, > > Is it possible to configure PostgresQL to use raw disk partition, like > Oracle does? that was only a temporary solution for RAC untill OCFS came along and now

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On Monday 19 February 2007 11:58, Israel Shikler wrote: > Hi , > > I see your post here concerning PostgresQL. > We are using RedHat & Mysql. > Is there any advantages using PostgresQL over Mysql? There are advantages both ways. You will need PostgreSQL when: 1) You need

RE: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

Hi , I see your post here concerning PostgresQL. We are using RedHat & Mysql. Is there any advantages using PostgresQL over Mysql? Regards, Israel Shikler Softkol Ltd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tzahi Fadida Sent: Monday, Februar

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

On Monday 19 February 2007 05:26, Amos Shapira wrote: > Hello, > > Is it possible to configure PostgresQL to use raw disk partition, like > Oracle does? > If not - is there any recommendation for favourite filesystem type to use? Most certainly not. PostgreSQL relies on the OS and

Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

Quoting Amos Shapira, from the post of Mon, 19 Feb: > Hello, > > Is it possible to configure PostgresQL to use raw disk partition, like > Oracle does? that was only a temporary solution for RAC untill OCFS came along and now it has become the recommended way of doing things. I see

PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about Access conversion)

Hello, Is it possible to configure PostgresQL to use raw disk partition, like Oracle does? If not - is there any recommendation for favourite filesystem type to use? So far google'ing around haven't revealed anything about the subject. And BTW - I found the following link which als

Re: XML to MySQL/PostgreSQL and vice versa

On Tuesday 08 June 2004 13:03, you wrote: > Noam Rathaus wrote: > > Does anyone knows an easy to use tool for converting MySQL/PostgreSQL > > (either or both) data to XML and vice versa without requiring any > > programming skills? > > > > Requirements: >

Re: XML to MySQL/PostgreSQL and vice versa

Noam Rathaus wrote: > Does anyone knows an easy to use tool for converting MySQL/PostgreSQL (either > or both) data to XML and vice versa without requiring any programming skills? > > Requirements: > Simply point to a table, it will generate an XML, and point to an XML it will &

RE: XML to MySQL/PostgreSQL and vice versa

Rathaus Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:10 AM To: Linux-IL Subject: Re: XML to MySQL/PostgreSQL and vice versa On Tuesday 08 June 2004 11:36, Weinstein, Alon wrote: > Use mysqldump > > http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/software/developer/0,39020469,2112200,00.htm > > > Alon. > Hi,

Re: XML to MySQL/PostgreSQL and vice versa

On Tuesday 08 June 2004 11:36, Weinstein, Alon wrote: > Use mysqldump > > http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/software/developer/0,39020469,2112200,00.htm > > > Alon. > Hi, Thank you for the reply, but isn't this one-way? It dumps as XML, but I don't see how you can import that XML back!? -- Thanks Noam

RE: XML to MySQL/PostgreSQL and vice versa

Use mysqldump http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/software/developer/0,39020469,2112200,00.htm Alon. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noam Rathaus Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:09 AM To: Linux-IL Subject: XML to MySQL/PostgreSQL and vice versa

XML to MySQL/PostgreSQL and vice versa

Hi, Does anyone knows an easy to use tool for converting MySQL/PostgreSQL (either or both) data to XML and vice versa without requiring any programming skills? Requirements: Simply point to a table, it will generate an XML, and point to an XML it will import data to the table. -- Thanks Noam

PostgreSQL site survive hard time :)

Title: PostgreSQL site survive hard time :) Look at http://www.postgresql.org/ Boulgakov Andrei

Re: PostgreSQL & Hebrew Charset

On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, Ben-Nes Michael wrote: > Hi > > does any one know if postgresl (7) support hebrew charset ? (sorting, > group ... ) > If so, what is the way to enable it ? there is a "locale"-ized extension for postgres. I don't know how the right-left dilemna is handled though for

Re: locale (PostgreSQL & Hebrew Charset)

On Tuesday 26 December 2000 15:06, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > I looked at > http://postgresql.readysetnet.com/devel-corner/docs/admin/multibyte.h >tm and I don't see there anything about the iso8859-8 encoding. That's because iso8859-8 is not a multibyte encoding, but a single-byte encoding. Utf-8

Re: locale (PostgreSQL & Hebrew Charset)

On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, Ben-Nes Michael wrote: > It seems that locale will work though it will reduce speed :( BTW: what are the pros and cons of using UTF-8 for your application? (this still does not handle sorting etc., of course) I looked at http://postgresql.readysetnet.com/devel-corner/docs/a

Re: locale (PostgreSQL & Hebrew Charset)

It seems that locale will work though it will reduce speed :( in locale i have two intresting option hebrew iw_IL any one know what is the diffrence ? Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, Ben-Nes Michael wrote: > > > Hi > > > > does any one know if postgresl (7) support hebrew charset

Re: PostgreSQL & Hebrew Charset

On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, Ben-Nes Michael wrote: > Hi > > does any one know if postgresl (7) support hebrew charset ? (sorting, > group ... ) > If so, what is the way to enable it ? Can't give you a direct answer, but: Does pgsql uses localized glibc functions? see locale (7). If so: set the LANG

Re: PostgreSQL & Hebrew Charset

On Monday 25 December 2000 19:12, Ben-Nes Michael wrote: > Hi > > does any one know if postgresl (7) support hebrew charset ? (sorting, > group ... ) > If so, what is the way to enable it ? I haven't used Postgres 7, but unless they changed the internals very seriously, it is supposed to support

PostgreSQL & Hebrew Charset

Hi does any one know if postgresl (7) support hebrew charset ? (sorting, group ... ) If so, what is the way to enable it ? -- -- Canaan Surfing Ltd. Internet Service Providers Ben-Nes Michael - Manager Tel: 972-6-6925757 Fax: 972-6-6925858 http://www.canaan.co.il