>
> Seems unlikely (IOW, if so, you've found a bug no one else has ever
> seen). Maybe they are being created implicitly by SERIAL column
> declarations?
>
Yeah they are created by the Serial column .
Regards
Sweta
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
sw...@opspl.com wrote:
Hello all,
When I create a db dump using --
pg_dump -s dbname > mydump.sql
Sequences present are not being added to the mydump.sql file
you'll need to be a -little- more specific... sure seems to me like its
working on this centos5 linux + pg 8.3.7 system
[
sw...@opspl.com writes:
> When I create a db dump using --
> pg_dump -s dbname > mydump.sql
> Sequences present are not being added to the mydump.sql file
Seems unlikely (IOW, if so, you've found a bug no one else has ever
seen). Maybe they are being created implicitly by SERIAL column
dec
Hello all,
When I create a db dump using --
pg_dump -s dbname > mydump.sql
Sequences present are not being added to the mydump.sql file
PS Cannot paste the contents of the file . Its too large :P
Regards
Sweta
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To
Filip Rembiałkowski wrote:
> fi...@filip=# prepare sth(int[]) as select * from ids where id = ANY($1);
> PREPARE
>
> fi...@filip=# execute sth('{1,2,3}');
> id | t
> +---
> 1 | eenie
> 2 | menie
> 3 | moe
> (3 rows)
Thanks!
> 2009/8/6 Ivan Voras mailto:ivo...@freebsd.org>>
>
>
Hi,
2009/8/6 Eric Schwarzenbach
> I tried playing with the join_collapse_limit setting. The implicit join
> query was unaffected. The explicit join out-performed the implicit one
> by 50% when the join_collapse_limit was low enough, and took just as
> long as the implicit one when the join_coll
Eric Schwarzenbach writes:
> I'm in the process taking a large SELECT statement which had been
> written using implicit join syntax (that is, just listing all the tables
> in the FROM clause, and listing join conditions in the WHERE clause) and
> rewriting it to use explicit JOIN syntax (they are
fi...@filip=# prepare sth(int[]) as select * from ids where id = ANY($1);
PREPARE
fi...@filip=# execute sth('{1,2,3}');
id | t
+---
1 | eenie
2 | menie
3 | moe
(3 rows)
2009/8/6 Ivan Voras
> Is it possible to prepare a query with the IN clause in a meaningful
> way? I could p
Tom Lane wrote:
> Christine Desmuke writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Years ago I saw roughly similar symptoms when SELinux decided postgres
>>> shouldn't be allowed to write to /dev/tty.
>
>> Thanks for the suggestion. It is not SELinux (SELinux status:
disabled), but _something_ is preventing pos
Is it possible to prepare a query with the IN clause in a meaningful
way? I could probably do it with a hard-coded number of arguments, like
"SELECT x FROM t WHERE y IN ($1, $2, $3)" but that kind of misses the
point of using IN for my needs.
In any case, it would probably be a good idea to add a
I tried playing with the join_collapse_limit setting. The implicit join
query was unaffected. The explicit join out-performed the implicit one
by 50% when the join_collapse_limit was low enough, and took just as
long as the implicit one when the join_collapse_limit was high enough.
If I'm reading
Um, ok. You've listed some conditions in order of how well they should
perform and these generally agree with my understanding. But how does
this relate to the relative performance of the semantically equivalent
explicit and implicit join syntaxes?
Eric
Martin Gainty wrote:
> here is my best -> w
here is my best -> worst join scenario starting with best
1)low cardinality tables
2)where or join on indexed columns
3)function indexes
4)concatenated indexes
.
5)cartesian join ..every row join specifically joins every other row from every
other table
Martin Gainty
___
paul_t...@fastmail.fm (Paul Taylor) writes:
> If instead you have to run a database standalone, then you do hit
> configurations problems, not only platform specific issues but also
> people bloody mindness about creating databases with different names
> and database users : whatever the documentat
I'm in the process taking a large SELECT statement which had been
written using implicit join syntax (that is, just listing all the tables
in the FROM clause, and listing join conditions in the WHERE clause) and
rewriting it to use explicit JOIN syntax (they are all inner joins).
This has sped up t
sw...@opspl.com writes:
>> You can use "kill " command to kill the slon daemons,
>> find
>> the pid's of the cluster and kill.
>>
>>
>
> But that is not totally right :P . If there is no other way we will
> use it.. But I want to stop slony properly using slony command. :)
There
On Wednesday 5. August 2009, Sam Mason wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:27:52AM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> Otherwise we're blind men describing an elephant.
>
>Interesting analogy, not heard that one before!
http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html
--
Leif Biberg Kristens
Doug Gorley writes:
> Perfect, I'm using the following function:
> create or replace function fn_sig(p_oid oid) returns text
> as $$
> begin
> return p_oid::regprocedure;
> end;
> $$ language plpgsql;
> In the following query:
> select
> pg_namespace.nspname ||
> '.' ||
> fn_sig(pg_p
Perfect, I'm using the following function:
create or replace function fn_sig(p_oid oid) returns text
as $$
begin
return p_oid::regprocedure;
end;
$$ language plpgsql;
In the following query:
select
pg_namespace.nspname ||
'.' ||
fn_sig(pg_proc.oid)
from
pg_proc
inner join pg_name
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:27:52AM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:15 +0200, Schindler Andor wrote:
> >> Can anyone tell me, how this is possible? If we insert 12 on the end, then
> >> it decreases, but 11 remains the same
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> Hi Andor,
>
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:15 +0200, Schindler Andor wrote:
>> Can anyone tell me, how this is possible? If we insert 12 on the end, then
>> it decreases, but 11 remains the same. The problem only occurs, when the
>> where condition co
I am wondering how others handle the login situation. We use Active
Directory and require our users to change their passwords every 30 days.
Currently in our old system using SQL Anywhere we use the integrated login
feature. Our db server is Windows 2003 R2
I believe we can mimic this in Postg
Hi Craig,
Sorry, I had the stack trace so I thought it was enough. I'll make sure the
debug environment is set up and post the full stack traces again.
-Brendan
-Original Message-
From: Craig Ringer [mailto:cr...@postnewspapers.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 August 2009 4:35 PM
To: Brendan
Hi,
I'm new to PostGres (so go easy on my naivety). I am trying to configure
the postgres host based configuration file to permit users to authenticate
against our Active Directory.
Needless to say both Ubuntu server and AD are in the same Domain.
. I am running PostGRESQL v8.3.7
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Michael
Gould wrote:
> The total size of our database with 5 years worth of data is about 3.4 gig.
> In the business we are in, we open about 5-7 new locations each year and
> close 2-3. I was also thinking that if each partition was by location it
>
It seems to m
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 02:45:20PM +0100, Paul Taylor wrote:
> Ok, the original question was Postgres have an embedded mode. If it did
> then everything could be contained with the application with no scripts
> required AND no assumptions would be made about the database because the
> same datab
Sam Mason wrote:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 08:02:13AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Paul Taylor :
this
is an opensource project and to enable others to contribute easily it is
much easier if they can download the code and run mvn package to compile
and test. Once you start int
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 08:02:13AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to Paul Taylor :
> > this
> > is an opensource project and to enable others to contribute easily it is
> > much easier if they can download the code and run mvn package to compile
> > and test. Once you start introducing e
Hi Andor,
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:15 +0200, Schindler Andor wrote:
> Can anyone tell me, how this is possible? If we insert 12 on the end, then
> it decreases, but 11 remains the same. The problem only occurs, when the
> where condition contains "sorrend > 9" or less.
I bet the "sorrend" column
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Schindler
Andor wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've got this update query:
>
> http://pastebin.com/m2e29990
>
> Can anyone tell me, how this is possible? If we insert 12 on the end, then
> it decreases, but 11 remains the same. The problem only occurs, when the
> where condition c
Hi!
I've got this update query:
http://pastebin.com/m2e29990
Can anyone tell me, how this is possible? If we insert 12 on the end, then
it decreases, but 11 remains the same. The problem only occurs, when the
where condition contains "sorrend > 9" or less.
It occured using "PostgreSQL 8.3.3, c
In response to Paul Taylor :
> Guy Rouillier wrote:
> > Paul Taylor wrote:
> >> I am testing the code that extracts information from a read only
> >> database. These are UNIT tests so only interested in getting the
> >> right results given a particular set of data, anything else is a
> >> distr
Le mercredi 5 août 2009 à 10:13:44, durumd...@gmail.com a écrit :
> [...]
> So please help me with your experience: what is the best solution, what is
> the possible problem that make mistakes with this plan, and how to realize
> it easily?
>
You can try check_postgres.pl Perl script. The same_sch
Hi!
I wanna ask that which pg_dump command line needed if I want to compare
two databases?
I have many DBs, but all of them have two versions a development (local)
DB and the online (web) DB.
When I want to realize a new function, I develop it locally, and later I
sync. it into online DB.
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 16:44 +1000, Brendan Hill wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> Sorry, I had the stack trace so I thought it was enough. I'll make sure the
> debug environment is set up and post the full stack traces again.
No worries. Sorry it cost you time.
I've extended the wiki article on win32 debug
35 matches
Mail list logo
