On 10/7/05, Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 05:47:36PM -0500, Jeffrey Melloy wrote:
> > The only thing I could see actually being an issue is the random() one
> > and add missing from. The rest are trivial. The random() thing is
> > interesting, esoteric, and pro
On 10/7/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:46:29PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:23, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
(...)
> > > Are you aware of the MySQL Gotchas website (just google it)? Any time
> > > you see MySQL being stupid about somethin
So, yeah, the above claim is just FUD. It'd be interesting to ask some
hard questions about exactly how solid MySQL AB's finances are ... and
how many other support options users will have if they go under.
Well I can say that Command Prompt will support their migration to
PostgreSQL fully
Dear All,
I use '$libdir/lo' for manage my PostgreSQL Large Object. It work fine for me to get and put Large Object from and to database. However I found something that may not correct when I try to backup my data. It seem that I cannot delete Large Object from database. It seem the thing I ca
On 10/6/05, Ly Lam Ngoc Bich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am using Linux Fedora 3 . I've installed Postgres with
> postgresql-8.0.3.tar.gz package , so there is no rpm package when I
> check with
> rpm -qa|grep postgresql
>
> Please show me the way to uninstall PostgresSQL.
>
> Sincerly yours,
"CN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I notice that PostgreSQL does disable triggers but it seems to not
> disable CHECK constraint:
Why should it?
(Hint: a check constraint that looks at anything but the row being
checked is broken by definition.)
regards, tom lane
---
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Gregory S. Williamson wrote:
>> [ re COUNT(*) ]
>> On Informix however it is blindingly fast, and can also be instantly
>> conjured with the dbaccess tool (Info/Table/Status). They might be
>> stashing this count somewhere, but it is not available when the table
>> is locke
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> - All the companies that have tried to operate by selling PostgreSQL
>> support services have gone bankrupt, except for EnterpriseDB.
> Oh the irony
Actually, AFAIR the *only* such company that's gone under was Great
Bridge; and in their case i
Thank you for the reply!
> > Triggers are still fired although option --disable-triggers is applied
> > to pg_restore. The fired triggers abort pg_restore because of the
> > foreign keys violations.
[snip]
> > pg_restore -l db1 >list
> > createdb -E UNICODE db1
> > pg_restore -F c -L list -v -d db
- All the companies that have tried to operate by selling PostgreSQL
support
services have gone bankrupt, except for EnterpriseDB.
Oh the irony
Command Prompt, Inc...
Doing PostgreSQL since 1997.
Profitable since 1997.
No debt since 1997.
Oh... and of course, no outsi
Gregory S. Williamson wrote:
> On Informix however it is blindingly fast, and can also be instantly
> conjured with the dbaccess tool (Info/Table/Status). They might be
> stashing this count somewhere, but it is not available when the table
> is locked, as during a load. However they do it, perform
On Informix however it is blindingly fast, and can also be instantly conjured
with the dbaccess tool (Info/Table/Status). They might be stashing this count
somewhere, but it is not available when the table is locked, as during a load.
However they do it, performance does not seem to suffer, and
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:42:57PM +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and seeing this thread
> thought I would share my experience of the MySQL stand - if you are
> of a delicate dispostion, please look away now. I basically asked
> them
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 04:31:14PM -0700, Roger Hand wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jim C. Nasby
> > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Dump all except some tables?
> >
> > ... I find myself wondering if it would be good
I had a similar experience speaking to the MySQL folks
at (the last) COMDEX. After trying to get them to
explain how their licenses work, I was even more
confused (and two reps even gave conflicting info).
CSN
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and
seeing this thre
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 05:47:36PM -0500, Jeffrey Melloy wrote:
> The only thing I could see actually being an issue is the random() one
> and add missing from. The rest are trivial. The random() thing is
> interesting, esoteric, and probably has never been a problem in a real
> situation. (O
hi everybody , is it possible to schedule vacuum in the server (
postgres 8.0.3 on Windows XP SP2) ? I want to vacuum the DB everyday at
22:00 and I want to automate the process
thanks in advance
Hugo
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jim C. Nasby
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Dump all except some tables?
>
> ... I find myself
> wondering if it would be good to allow for specifying a set of rules for
> what to dump in a file, p
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unquoted object names fold to lower case
> I don't really see this as too much of an issue, personally, but I do
> know some people have run into it. The example they give seems a bit
> off tho, as I thought Oracle just folded to upper-case (in whi
Yep, I think the SQL spec says fold to uppercase. I'm
not sure why PostgreSQL folds to lowercase instead,
but if folding has to occur, I prefer lowercase.
CSN
--- "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:54:43PM -0700, CSN wrote:
> > - lowercase folding. I DO some
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:54:43PM -0700, CSN wrote:
> - lowercase folding. I DO sometimes wish I could use
> fieldID, etc. without quoting it.
I believe that may be against ANSI SQL. In any case, the only databases
I can think of that don't fold-case in some form are MySQL and Access.
--
Jim C.
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 05:29:14PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:29:51PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > * Problems that will be fixed in the next version of PostgreSQL.
> > This means that problems get on developers' radar and get fixed.
> > I suppose by some extremely un-
Hi everyone,
I've just got back from LinuxWorld in London and seeing this thread thought
I would share my experience of the MySQL stand - if you are of a delicate
dispostion, please look away now. I basically asked them straight up why I
should use MySQL instead of PostgreSQL and was quite surpris
Neil Conway wrote:
"COUNT(*) very slow": this is a known issue -- see the -hackers archives
for many prior discussions. MVCC makes this hard to solve effectively
(whether applications should actually be using COUNT(*) on large tables
with no WHERE clause is another matter...)
-Neil
And it's
Glen Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Access will rewrite it to this...
> SELECT t1.field1, t2.field2 FROM {oj t1 LEFT OUTER JOIN t2 on t1.field1
> = t2.field2 WHERE t1.field3 = 'some value' };
> Note the "{oj" after "FROM", and the closing "}" at the end of the
> query. What the heck is t
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:32:26PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:51:22AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > WireSpot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On 10/6/05, A. Kretschmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> You can use the -t more than once.
> > >>
> > >> pg_dump -U foobar da
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 02:30:53PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
> MySQL is to linux, what Jet is to Windows IMHO, oh wait - Jet has foreign
> keys by default...
MySQL is the WindowsME of databases <- first hit searching for MySQL on
CafePress. :)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMA
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:46:29PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:23, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
> > > getting fixed and probably won't.
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:29:51PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> * Problems that will be fixed in the next version of PostgreSQL.
> This means that problems get on developers' radar and get fixed. I
> suppose by some extremely un-generous method of assessment, this
> could be a gotcha.
>
> *
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 04:18:03PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> COUNT(*) very slow
> As someone else has pointed out, it's only slow if you've got a large
> dataset. There's certainly workarounds for this issue (generally
> involving a couple of functions for keeping track of the number of
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:40:49PM -0700, CSN wrote:
>
> --- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access
> > tables in other
> > servers like they are here. No real direct
> > equivalent in PostgreSQL,
> > but dblink provides similar functio
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:19:33PM -0600, Aly S.P Dharshi wrote:
> Okay that is a fair statement to make, hence restating:
>
> - What is the status of those items listed on the PostgreSQL gotchas
Some of them are for sure gotchas. For users of
tranditionally-non-toy (as opposed to recently-non-t
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:30:26AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> Information Schema: MySQL's support of this looks fairly extensive.
But PostgreSQL's is pretty good, too, last I looked.
> Instance Manager: Uniquely MySQL. It allows things like starting and
> stopping the database remotely.
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:40 -0700, CSN wrote:
> --- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access
> > tables in other
> > servers like they are here. No real direct
> > equivalent in PostgreSQL,
> > but dblink provides similar functionality.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Parker
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:41 PM
> To: Postgres General
> Subject: [GENERAL] MS Access / Postgres ODBC / Outer joins
>
> We're having a problem with Access, Postgres
Stephen Frost wrote:
> UNICODE means "UTF-8"
> This is an interesting point. To be perfectly honest, it seems like
> Postgres' UNICODE/UTF-8/etc support could stand to be somewhat better.
> I've not used it much myself but I do see comments about it on the
> lists from time to time. I thi
hi,
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Jan Söderback wrote:
I have an AMD64 Fedora Core 3 server with Postgresql 8.0.1 that I want
to upgrade to the latest version. Since 8.0.2 incremented the libpq
version I can't install the official RPM packages. I found a
message[1] to this list which had a compat-postgr
Hi again,
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Jan Söderback wrote:
Is that package compatible with 8.0.4?
I forgot to reply this.
Yes, but please do not download 8.0.4 RPMs now. New sets of 8.0.4 RPMs
will be released this weekend (marked as 2PGDG). The current ones are a
bit buggy and will be replaced w
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vivek Khera
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 1:55 PM
> To: Postgres General
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] License question
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2005, at 4:38 PM, Aaron Smith wrote:
>
> > I neve
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:35:38PM -0700, CSN wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
> > getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql understands
> > fk references made at a table level, it simply
We're having a problem with Access, Postgres, and outer joins. I'm
hoping this will ring a bell with someone and there'll be an easy answer.
Everything seems to work OK with inner joins and everything else we've
tried, but when switching to an outer join, Access screws the SQL all
up. I'm al
* Aly S.P Dharshi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> - What is the status of those items listed on the PostgreSQL gotchas
> - Are they bugs ?
> - Are they valid statements ?
> - If they are bugs are they resolved ?
> - What does the PG community thing of this list of gotchas ?
>
> http://sql-info.de/pos
CSN wrote:
- I don't know enough about the "UNICODE means
"UTF-8"" and "RANDOM() failures" to comment.
I'm hardly an expert, but I've done enough with unicode to know that you
can easily convert utf-8 to any other flavor of unicode you might want
to use. Though, why you'd want to use someth
On Thu, 2005-06-10 at 12:07 -0600, Aly S.P Dharshi wrote:
> http://sql-info.de/postgresql/postgres-gotchas.html
>
> Any comments from folks on the list ?
"SELECT column alias, ...": this is a known issue. AFAIK it is not easy
to solve.
"Unquoted object names fold to lower case": this is intentio
--- CSN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - 8 of the 13 are for versions of PostgreSQL <= 8.1
Doh!
- 8 of the 13 are for versions of PostgreSQL < 8.1!
__
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
On Oct 4, 2005, at 4:38 PM, Aaron Smith wrote:
I never imagined that I would get so many responses. Thanks for all
the great information!
depending on the nature of your DB you may wish to investigate SQLite
as well. it is designed to be embedded into apps, not run as a
separate server,
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 05:34:25PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > Yes, because libpg.so is licensed under the BSD license. Note that
> > you can do this in a COPYRIGHT file. It just has to be "in all
> > copies", whatever that means.
>
> AFAIK, this would only apply if he was actually distributi
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:07:12PM -0600, Aly S.P Dharshi wrote:
> http://sql-info.de/postgresql/postgres-gotchas.html
>
> Any comments from folks on the list ?
Several.
First, it looks to me like this is a pretty transparent attempt to
troll, so I'm not going to go there.
Second, if you actual
--- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 23:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:37 -0700, CSN wrote:
> > >> Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there
> any new
> > >> comparable features in MySQL 5.0 th
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:51:22AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> WireSpot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 10/6/05, A. Kretschmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You can use the -t more than once.
> >>
> >> pg_dump -U foobar database -t foo -t foo1
>
> > Yes, pg_dump doesn't complain. But it only ta
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql understands
fk references made at a table level, it simply ignores, without error,
warning, or notice
Hello !
you have to configure :
PostgreSQL 8 conf files on the server,
Install psqlodbc on the client, and create an ODBC
data system source for your data.
In Access you have to link the PG
tables.
Luc
- Original Message -
From:
Aman Tur
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 14:35, CSN wrote:
> --- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE
> > bugs simply aren't
> > getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically,
> > while mysql understands
> > fk references made at a table level, i
--- Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Federated Storage Engine: Allows MySQL to access
> tables in other
> servers like they are here. No real direct
> equivalent in PostgreSQL,
> but dblink provides similar functionality.
Would that be possible with table partitions? Or
Slony?
CSN
Support for windows 98 was infact extended to June 2006:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean1
AlexOn 10/6/05, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 21:40 +0300, Andrus wrote:> > Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new> > comparable features in MySQL 5.0 t
> On 10/6/05, Aly S.P Dharshi wrote:
>
>
http://sql-info.de/postgresql/postgres-gotchas.html
>
> Any comments from folks on the list ?
- It's a lot shorter than MySQL's gotchas list.
- 8 of the 13 are for versions of PostgreSQL <= 8.1
- Of the remaining, I consider "select as" to be
rea
Sorry.
AlexOn 10/6/05, Gavin M. Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This sure sounds like a flamewar bait email?On Oct 6, 2005, at 11:07 AM, Aly S.P Dharshi wrote:> http://sql-info.de/postgresql/postgres-gotchas.html
>> Any comments from folks on the list ?>> Cheers,>> Aly.>> --> Aly S.P Dharshi> [EMAI
Don't think so.
The author sounds like a PostgreSQL proponent to me.
It also sounds like most of the issues have been addressed with recent
builds.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gavin M. Roy
> Sent: Thursday, October
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:07:12PM -0600, Aly S.P Dharshi wrote:
> http://sql-info.de/postgresql/postgres-gotchas.html
>
> Any comments from folks on the list ?
The implicit from and mildly non-standard case folding are the only
two that approach being real issues people may stumble over, IMO. I
Andrus wrote:
> > Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
> > comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
> > PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
> > lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
>
> PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
>
> There is a LOT of cu
Okay that is a fair statement to make, hence restating:
- What is the status of those items listed on the PostgreSQL gotchas
- Are they bugs ?
- Are they valid statements ?
- If they are bugs are they resolved ?
- What does the PG community thing of this list of gotchas ?
http://sql-info.de/post
Then wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask:
What's the status of the things listed on the PostgreSQL gotchas.
Are they bugs? Are they valid? Have the been resolved? What does
the community thing of those gotchas?
I personally don't take an open ended question like "URL: Any
comments?
They're all valid, but most apply to versions < 8.0 or < 7.4 even, and
the others are pretty esoteric issues that you don't see often. The
missing from clause thing is likely to be the biggest surprise most
folks run into.
I find the supposed bad performance of aggregates is bunk. On my
workstat
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 21:40 +0300, Andrus wrote:
> > Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
> > comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
> > PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
> > lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
>
> PostgreSQL does not run in W
> > Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new comparable
> > features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in PostgreSQL up to the
> forthcoming
> > 8.1? AFAIK, PG just lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
>
> PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
>
> There is a LOT of customers runni
No flamewar here, I am just trying to see if opinions of others on this,
as Jim had posted a MySQL one, and that there was a PostgreSQL one, so I
wanted to see if these are valid, if they aren't then that site should be
updated to reflect this.
Cheers,
Aly.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Gavin M. Roy w
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:23, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
> > getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql understands
> > fk references made at a tabl
> Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
> comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
> PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
> lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
PostgreSQL does not run in Windows 98
There is a LOT of customers running Windows 98 .
This sure sounds like a flamewar bait email?
On Oct 6, 2005, at 11:07 AM, Aly S.P Dharshi wrote:
http://sql-info.de/postgresql/postgres-gotchas.html
Any comments from folks on the list ?
Cheers,
Aly.
--
Aly S.P Dharshi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"A good speech is like a good dress
tha
Compared to MySQL ditching referential integrity because of a typo, I
would consider these 'gotchas' extremely minor, hence the reason I use
Postgresql not MySQL. Postgresql does what you expect from an
RDBMS system out of the box in 99.99% of cases. I don't have to
toggle things on special like,
http://sql-info.de/postgresql/postgres-gotchas.html
Any comments from folks on the list ?
Cheers,
Aly.
--
Aly S.P Dharshi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"A good speech is like a good dress
that's short enough to be interesting
and long enough to cover the subject"
---
Now this is rather useful in my opinion. I will be passing it on to some
of my collegues.
Aly.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
getting fixed and pro
On Thursday 06 October 2005 18:20, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> No, there's no reason for 8.0 to be slower at this than 7.4, if all else
> is equal. I'm betting that all else is not equal. Maybe you are using
> a different encoding or locale in the new installation than the old?
>
Well, I suspect that som
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> But what really bugs me is that some things that ARE bugs simply aren't
> getting fixed and probably won't. Specifically, while mysql understands
> fk references made at a table level, it simply ignores, without error,
> warning, or
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:50:47PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >More generally, it's worth making the point that a lot of MySQL's "brand
> >new in 5.0" features have been in Postgres for a *long* time, and are
> >therefore likely to be both more stable and better-performing than
> >MySQL's f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> After upgrading to 8.0.3 I see very poor performance on several indexes.
> ...
> Database was recently analyzed. Clearly, something has to be tuned that
> didn't
> need tuning on 7.4.3 ? (Main table has about 1.7 million records).
No, there's no reason for 8.0 to be s
Hi Folks,
Well I think i had 'now' in there in someplaces and that got parsed.
I've fixed it in all databases on my system now, so doing forward I'm
safe.
However there is a 2 week period in which the dates for some items are
not what they should be. Of course they should be "now()" whenever now
On Thu, 2005-06-10 at 16:14 +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I am trying to transfer the following from MySQL to PostgreSQL:
> >
> > load data local
> > infile 'D:/tmp/InterAcces- MySQL/03102005/bedrijven.txt'
> > into table bedrijven
> > fields ter
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 20:37, CSN wrote:
> Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
> comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
> PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AFAIK, PG just
> lacks updatable views (which are on the TODO).
Bit type: Postgresql supports binary string alre
Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
Hi list,
I am trying to transfer the following from MySQL to PostgreSQL:
load data local
infile 'D:/tmp/InterAcces- MySQL/03102005/bedrijven.txt'
into table bedrijven
fields terminated by ',' optionally enclosed by '^'
lines terminated by ';\r\n';
Is there a way
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 23:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 18:37 -0700, CSN wrote:
> >> Just so I know (and am armed ;) ), are there any new
> >> comparable features in MySQL 5.0 that aren't in
> >> PostgreSQL up to the forthcoming 8.1? AF
am 06.10.2005, um 22:33:52 +0800 mailte CN folgendes:
> Hi!
>
> 8.0.1 and 8.1 beta.
>
> Triggers are still fired although option --disable-triggers is applied
> to pg_restore. The fired triggers abort pg_restore because of the
> foreign keys violations.
>
> The following restore script used to
Hi,
After upgrading to 8.0.3 I see very poor performance on several indexes.
Like this: (udps is a view on main)
palga=> explain analyze select rapnaam from udps where naamvrouw like 'vos%';
QUERY PLAN
-
Hello, Greg and thanks for suggestions, but it didn't work with append
query. I just couldn't pass more than 255 characters long text as parameter
of DAO query. But, fortunately, I solved the problem by using AddNew method
of DAO recordset to append new row. In this case I could pass directly th
Hi!
8.0.1 and 8.1 beta.
Triggers are still fired although option --disable-triggers is applied
to pg_restore. The fired triggers abort pg_restore because of the
foreign keys violations.
The following restore script used to be working but it suddently
doesn't. I don't remember I ever changed this
Ly Lam Ngoc Bich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am using Linux Fedora 3 . I've installed Postgres with
> postgresql-8.0.3.tar.gz package , so there is no rpm package when I
> check with
> rpm -qa|grep postgresql
>
> Please show me the way to uninstall PostgresSQL.
You should be able to go in
> They have collation and multiple characterset per table and etc. which
> actually is from 4.1 (not new in 5.0), and postgresql have only one
> collation per database cluster :-(
> Otherwise I think their features are all there, but cannot be used
> togather most of them (you can have foreign k
WireSpot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10/6/05, A. Kretschmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You can use the -t more than once.
>>
>> pg_dump -U foobar database -t foo -t foo1
> Yes, pg_dump doesn't complain. But it only takes the first one into
> consideration. I only get one table in the dump
I am using Linux Fedora 3 . I've installed Postgres with
postgresql-8.0.3.tar.gz package , so there is no rpm package when I
check with
rpm -qa|grep postgresql
Please show me the way to uninstall PostgresSQL.
Sincerly yours,
---(end of broadcast)---
Hi list,
I am trying to transfer the following from MySQL to PostgreSQL:
load data local
infile 'D:/tmp/InterAcces- MySQL/03102005/bedrijven.txt'
into table bedrijven
fields terminated by ',' optionally enclosed by '^'
lines terminated by ';\r\n';
Is there a way to do this without changing the
They have collation and multiple characterset per table and etc. which
actually is from 4.1 (not new in 5.0), and postgresql have only one
collation per database cluster :-(
Otherwise I think their features are all there, but cannot be used
togather most of them (you can have foreign key, but no
On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:14 AM, suresh ramasamy wrote:
On 10/6/05, Ly Lam Ngoc Bich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have installed PostgresSQL with postgresql-8.0.3.tar.gz . My
computer's OS is Linux Fedora 3 . Please show me to the way to
uninstall
PostgresSQL.
hi,
have you customized your i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (CSN) writes:
> I'm not sure what XA (distributed transactions) is -
> is that something that can be achieved with Slony?
No.
XA is an interface to allow having updates take place across multiple
databases.
That would mean that you do some updates on one DB, others on another,
am 06.10.2005, um 15:29:50 +0300 mailte WireSpot folgendes:
> > > The only related option for both pg_dump and pg_restore is --table, which
> > > only takes 1 (one) table name. If only it accepted more than one I
> > > could've
> > > found a workaround.
> >
> > You can use the -t more than once.
On 10/6/05, A. Kretschmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> am 06.10.2005, um 13:59:44 +0300 mailte WireSpot folgendes:
> > Is it possible to dump an entire database but to skip one or two tables? Or,
> > conversely, to restore an entire dump except for one or two tables?
> > (Although I'd prefer the f
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:57:32AM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> This is the bit that's been bugging me this whole thread. Who owns the
> data? I've had to help people out with programs where they could type
> data in but couldn't get the reports they wanted out. Furtunatly,
> Access's acc
WireSpot wrote:
Is it possible to dump an entire database but to skip one or two
tables? Or, conversely, to restore an entire dump except for one or
two tables? (Although I'd prefer the first version.)
The only related option for both pg_dump and pg_restore is --table,
which only takes 1 (on
am 06.10.2005, um 13:59:44 +0300 mailte WireSpot folgendes:
> Is it possible to dump an entire database but to skip one or two tables? Or,
> conversely, to restore an entire dump except for one or two tables?
> (Although I'd prefer the first version.)
>
> The only related option for both pg_dump
I have an AMD64 Fedora Core 3 server with Postgresql 8.0.1 that I want
to upgrade to the latest version. Since 8.0.2 incremented the libpq
version I can't install the official RPM packages. I found a
message[1] to this list which had a compat-postgresql-libs[2] RPM, but
that's an i686 package. Wher
Is it possible to dump an entire database but to skip one or two
tables? Or, conversely, to restore an entire dump except for one or two
tables? (Although I'd prefer the first version.)
The only related option for both pg_dump and pg_restore is --table,
which only takes 1 (one) table name. If only
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
