Mark Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm wondering if there's a manageable limit on the number of users in
> postgresql. I could have conceivably thousands of different users for
> any particular app and multiple apps in the same server.
Numbers in the low thousands are probably workable,
Tom Lane wrote:
> Oisin Glynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Anyway I think that a fair case could be made for dropping the 8.0
>>> branch now, and maybe 8.1 too, as far as Windows support goes.
>
>> My 8.2c,
>> Having 8.1 end of life this soon after the release of 8.2 seems pr
Oisin Glynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Anyway I think that a fair case could be made for dropping the 8.0
>> branch now, and maybe 8.1 too, as far as Windows support goes.
> My 8.2c,
> Having 8.1 end of life this soon after the release of 8.2 seems pretty
> harsh.
That's fi
> It should also be considered that it is probably more difficult to
> alleviate the concerns of people about using even the *best* Open
> Source database on a Windows platform (please don't bash us for using
> windows for now it is a necessary evil)
As much as I would like to say the community
I want to make a client application that logs onto a postgresql server
with an individual postgresql user role for each user. This is as
opposed to having one user role for the entire app, storing that
password on the local client, and using the client app to do
authentication against a a tabl
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 02:28:38PM -0500, Michael Artz wrote:
> Perhaps my understanding of the 'encode' function is incorrect, but I
> was under the impression that I could do something like:
>
> SELECT lower(encode(bytes, 'escape')) FROM mytable;
>
> as it sounded like (from the manual) that 'e
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 09:55:39AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Keep in mind also that we have seen the stats-test failure on
>> non-Windows machines, so we still need to explain that ...
> Yeah. But it *could* be two different stats issues lurking. Perha
Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I've been considering only maintaining the current and previous 2
versions in pgInstaller (the Windows binary distro). But that's a *lot*
harder to maintain than just PostgreSQL because of all the bundled
stuff. In other words, when 8.3 is
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Michael Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, it appears
> > from the documentation that the PGPASSFILE environmental variable has
> > been deprecated for pg_dump and pg_restore.
>
> Eh? Certainly not ... where did you get that idea?
I assumed he meant the PASSWORD en
"Michael Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, it appears
> from the documentation that the PGPASSFILE environmental variable has
> been deprecated for pg_dump and pg_restore.
Eh? Certainly not ... where did you get that idea?
> I would like to ask that we return to outputting the Passwor
Michael Schmidt wrote:
> Fellow PostgreSQL fans, Last year there was a pretty lengthy discussion
> (Tom Lane offered a lot of insights) on this list about deprecating
> the PGPASSWORD environmental variable. I understand the security issues
> here very well. However, up through version 8.1, it ha
Fellow PostgreSQL fans,
Last year there was a pretty lengthy discussion (Tom Lane offered a lot of
insights) on this list about deprecating the PGPASSWORD environmental variable.
I understand the security issues here very well. However, up through version
8.1, it has been easy to use pg_dump a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/27/07 11:50, Bill Moran wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
[snip]
> Of course, the end of "official" support for a project doesn't prevent folks
> with an interest from continuing to support it unofficially.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 03:17:14PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Seems HEAD now passes thie check stage on at least snake and bandicoot.
> They're now exposing another problem with ECPG though...
This should be fixed now. I just missed to change MinGW expected files
when I changed the tests. Tha
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
> -- Start of PGP signed section.
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 08:41 +, Dave Page wrote:
> > >
> > > What do people think about that? Does anyone think it would be an
> > > unreasonable policy?
> >
> > I don't think
So far, the patched binary seems to have fixed the statistics issue in
my environment. pgstat.stat is now updating constantly,
pg_stat_user_tables is updating correctly, and autovacuum is running!
Thanks for your quick response to this issue! Let me know if there is
anything else I can do to ass
a feeling I have). But the important part is that either way I think
it's way too early to drop 8.1.
I agree. Started a project last summer, using 8.1, rollout is now. > 1 year
for database projects is not unusual, and having the database release
dropped during this time is not nice.
Harald
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I've been considering only maintaining the current and previous 2
>> versions in pgInstaller (the Windows binary distro). But that's a *lot*
>> harder to maintain than just PostgreSQL because of all the bundled
>> stuff. In other words, whe
> Anyway I think that a fair case could be made for dropping the 8.0
> branch now, and maybe 8.1 too, as far as Windows support goes. What
> you want to do going forward is a different decision --- these are
> edge cases because of the newness of the port.
Well as someone who has literally thous
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:17:03PM +0100, Philippe Lang wrote:
> I've got plperl code that works just fine when the database is
> encoded using LATIN1, but fails as soon as I switch to UTF8.
>
> I've been testing PG 8.1.4 under Linux, and PG 8.1.6 under FreeBSD,
> both behave exactly the save.
[..
Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been considering only maintaining the current and previous 2
> versions in pgInstaller (the Windows binary distro). But that's a *lot*
> harder to maintain than just PostgreSQL because of all the bundled
> stuff. In other words, when 8.3 is out, the 8.0
Will do - thanks Magnus! I'll test it for a while and post the results
here.
Jeremy Haile
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:21:23 +0100, "Magnus Hagander"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jeremy Haile wrote:
> > Using standard build (none of the things you mentioned) on 8.2.1
> > currently.
> >
> > I really
Jeremy Haile wrote:
> Using standard build (none of the things you mentioned) on 8.2.1
> currently.
>
> I really appreciate it!
Ok. I've built a binary for you at
http://www.hagander.net/download/pgsql_8.2.1_win32select.zip
Note that while I named the file 8.2.1 it really isn't - it's current
he
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/27/07 04:13, Anton Melser wrote:
> On 26/01/07, Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Benjamin Smith wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 23 January 2007 13:55, Carlos wrote:
>> >> What would be the faster way to convert a 7.4.x
Dave Page wrote:
> Bill Moran wrote:
>> Does the PostgreSQL project have any similar policy about EoLs? Even just
>> a simple statement like, "it is our goal to support major branches for 2
>> years after release" or some such?
>
> I've been considering only maintaining the current and previous 2
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 08:41 +, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> > What do people think about that? Does anyone think it would be an
> > unreasonable policy?
>
> I don't think so. You should build 8.0 binaries until the community
> stops m
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Attached patch seems to solve the problem on my machine at least. Uses
>> pgwin32_waitforsinglesocket() instead of pgwin32_select(). Changes
>> pgwin32_waitforsinglesocket() to accept the timeout as a parameter (this
>> is why it touc
On 26/01/07, Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 25, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Benjamin Smith wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 January 2007 13:55, Carlos wrote:
>> What would be the faster way to convert a 7.4.x database into an 8.x
>> database? A dump of the database takes over 20 hours so we want
>> to
Hi,
On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 08:41 +, Dave Page wrote:
>
> What do people think about that? Does anyone think it would be an
> unreasonable policy?
I don't think so. You should build 8.0 binaries until the community
stops maintaining PostgreSQL 8.0.
This is what we do for RPMs -- I know it is
Bill Moran wrote:
> Does the PostgreSQL project have any similar policy about EoLs? Even just
> a simple statement like, "it is our goal to support major branches for 2
> years after release" or some such?
I've been considering only maintaining the current and previous 2
versions in pgInstaller (
30 matches
Mail list logo
