Dae-man Yang writes:
> I initdb like below
> "initdb --pgdata=/pg_data --encoding='utf8' --locale='C' --lc-collate='C'
> --lc-ctype='C' --username=sys --pwprompt"
OK. The --username switch specifies the name of the initial database
superuser. Instead of "postgres", it's going to be "sys".
> Wh
I initdb like below
"initdb --pgdata=/pg_data --encoding='utf8' --locale='C' --lc-collate='C'
--lc-ctype='C' --username=sys --pwprompt"
When startup database server.
Server wirte log like this
-
LOG: database system was shut down at 2012-10-31 12:00:14 KST
LOG: databa
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7628
Logged by: George Tsaloukidis
Email address: gt...@intracom.gr
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.1
Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit, SP 1
Description:
Dear All,
I downloaded setup file postgre
Thanks for your helpful explanations. Reading subsection 13.2.1 makes
sense now. I am not sure if and how the documentation could be improved,
but I propose below some suggestions that you may find relevant. My
confusion may have stem from my lack of knowledge in PostgreSQL locking
mechanism.
dmigow...@ikoffice.de writes:
> However, when I also want to order by id:
>order by prep_natural_sort(d.number) ASC,
> d.id ASC
> it does a sequential scan.
Sure. That index doesn't satisfy this sort order. (It could have
gotten chosen anyway, if the partial-index predicate we
The fuzzystrmatch module (
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/fuzzystrmatch.html) is currently,
as of 9.2.1, documented with the caution *"At present, the soundex,
metaphone, dmetaphone, and dmetaphone_alt functions do not work well with
multibyte encodings (such as UTF-8)"*.
While the vene
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7629
Logged by: Daniel Migowski
Email address: dmigow...@ikoffice.de
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.2
Operating system: Debian Linux 5.0
Description:
Hi!
PostgreSQL chooses to seq scan a table when I give an a
On 30 October 2012 05:27, Tom Lane wrote:
> edw...@clericare.com writes:
>> The following two queries differ only by adding "LIMIT 1", but the one with
>> the limit gets radically worse performance. I've done VACUUM FULL, VACUUM
>> ANALYZE, and REINDEX DATABASE and there are no modifications since
