Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)ISNOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)

1999-12-21 Thread Ed Loehr
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I think it is harmless. To fix it properly requires a > > > very sophisticated write-ahead log that is scheduled for 7.1 in about > > > six months. > > > > This problem stops my psql dead in its tracks for related queries even across new > > sessions. Requires a rebu

Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)ISNOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)

1999-12-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
> > I think it is harmless. To fix it properly requires a > > very sophisticated write-ahead log that is scheduled for 7.1 in about > > six months. > > This problem stops my psql dead in its tracks for related queries even across new > sessions. Requires a rebuild of indices before any queries

Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)ISNOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)

1999-12-21 Thread Ed Loehr
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Is the problem well-understood? Is there a place where I can read up on it? This > > kind of instability is painful enough to get me thinking about trying to hack my > > distribution... > > I believe it has to do with extra index tuples showing up in the index > that ar

Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)ISNOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)

1999-12-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
> Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > That will also be fixed. > > > > > > Do you mean to say the offending index will be auto-corrected on the fly? That > > > would be almost as good as preventing the root cause in the first place... > > > > No, it just reports the index name. In 7.1, I think this

Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)ISNOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)

1999-12-21 Thread Ed Loehr
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > That will also be fixed. > > > > Do you mean to say the offending index will be auto-corrected on the fly? That > > would be almost as good as preventing the root cause in the first place... > > No, it just reports the index name. In 7.1, I think this problem will > g

Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)ISNOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)

1999-12-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
> > That will also be fixed. > > Do you mean to say the offending index will be auto-corrected on the fly? That > would be almost as good as preventing the root cause in the first place... No, it just reports the index name. In 7.1, I think this problem will go away, if not in 7.0. -- Bruc

Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)ISNOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)

1999-12-21 Thread Ed Loehr
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > Anyone seen this message or know what it means? > > > > > > > > NOTICE: Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071) IS > > > > NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070) > > > > > > Drop index and recreate. Next release will be more spe

Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)ISNOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)

1999-12-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
> Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Anyone seen this message or know what it means? > > > > > > NOTICE: Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071) IS > > > NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070) > > > > Drop index and recreate. Next release will be more specific in error > > message. > > I ha

Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)

1999-12-21 Thread Ed Loehr
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Anyone seen this message or know what it means? > > > > NOTICE: Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071) IS > > NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070) > > Drop index and recreate. Next release will be more specific in error > message. I have no idea *which* ind

Re: [GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071)IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)

1999-12-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
> Anyone seen this message or know what it means? > > NOTICE: Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071) IS > NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070) Drop index and recreate. Next release will be more specific in error message. -- Bruce Momjian| http://www.op

[GENERAL] Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071) IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070)

1999-12-21 Thread Ed Loehr
Anyone seen this message or know what it means? NOTICE: Index pg_proc_prosrc_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (1071) IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (1070) Cheers, Ed Loehr

[GENERAL] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Announce: PostgreSQL-6.5.3 binaries available forWindows NT

1999-12-21 Thread Kevin Lo
Hannu Krosing wrote: > Kevin Lo wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Some people asked me to build PostgreSQL binaries for Windows NT. > > The binaries(PostgreSQL-6.5.3) are now available at: > > > > ftp://203.79.167.135/pub/postgres-nt-binaries.tar.gz > > Great ! > > > Please go to my page if you want to

[GENERAL] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Announce: PostgreSQL-6.5.3 binaries available for Windows NT

1999-12-21 Thread Hannu Krosing
Kevin Lo wrote: > > Hi, > > Some people asked me to build PostgreSQL binaries for Windows NT. > The binaries(PostgreSQL-6.5.3) are now available at: > > ftp://203.79.167.135/pub/postgres-nt-binaries.tar.gz Great ! > Please go to my page if you want to build it yourself :) > > http://www.free

Re: [GENERAL] Release LRU file

1999-12-21 Thread Mike Mascari
Kimi wrote: > > Hi, > > This is in continuation of mails I sent last week about postgres > crashing > We are running pg 6.5.1, on Redhar 5.1 with DBI 0.92 and DBD 1.13 on a > 512 MB RAM > and SCSI machine > > Our application consists of requests going upto 150 per second on this > database > wi

Re: [GENERAL] item descriptions in psql

1999-12-21 Thread Mike Mascari
"J. Roeleveld" wrote: > > Hi, > > I just found a reference to descriptions to functions/tables/...etc. > and am now wondering how to add them myself? > > Joost Roeleveld > > ps. as an example of what I'm referring to: > > mydb=> \dd currval > description > -- > sequence cu

[GENERAL] Release LRU file

1999-12-21 Thread Kimi
Hi, This is in continuation of mails I sent last week about postgres crashing We are running pg 6.5.1, on Redhar 5.1 with DBI 0.92 and DBD 1.13 on a 512 MB RAM and SCSI machine Our application consists of requests going upto 150 per second on this database with an expected uptime of 24 by 7. Ear

[GENERAL] Announce: PostgreSQL-6.5.3 binaries available for Windows NT

1999-12-21 Thread Kevin Lo
Hi, Some people asked me to build PostgreSQL binaries for Windows NT. The binaries(PostgreSQL-6.5.3) are now available at: ftp://203.79.167.135/pub/postgres-nt-binaries.tar.gz Please go to my page if you want to build it yourself :) http://www.freebsd.org/~kevlo/postgres/portNT.html The Chine

[GENERAL] item descriptions in psql

1999-12-21 Thread J. Roeleveld
Hi, I just found a reference to descriptions to functions/tables/...etc. and am now wondering how to add them myself? Joost Roeleveld ps. as an example of what I'm referring to: mydb=> \dd currval description -- sequence current value (1 row) mydb=> \dd mytable

[GENERAL] item descriptions in psql

1999-12-21 Thread J. Roeleveld
Hi, I just found a reference to descriptions to functions/tables/...etc. and am now wondering how to add them myself? Joost Roeleveld ps. as an example of what I'm referring to: mydb=> \dd currval description -- sequence current value (1 row) mydb=> \dd mytable

[GENERAL] Cannot index large table in 6.5.3 on Linux

1999-12-21 Thread Karl DeBisschop
This was originally posted on bugs, to no avail. Maybe someone else in the general mailing list has had similar problems and can shed some light. Basically, the subject say it all. I am trying to index a text field in a somehwhat large table (approx 1GB). We have had this database running for

Re: [GENERAL] char(xx) problem

1999-12-21 Thread Herouth Maoz
At 4:02 +0200 on 17/12/1999, Gene Selkov, Jr. wrote: > I'm just wondering: are there any alternatives to blank padding? Why > is it done in the first place? That's how fixed-length char type works, since the early days of SQL. You come to expect it, which means that if you use legacy code that

RE: [GENERAL] Announce: Postgres Access Control Tool

1999-12-21 Thread postgres
Hi Mark, > Is there anyway I can get this run under Tcl/Tk on Windows NT? I tried > simply loading ./paco into wish but it failed looking up /usr/ > references. I haven't tested PACO on Windows. But this should work: PACO needs two Tcl/Tk extensions loaded as shared object files: libpgtcl