Hello.
I had such an error but rather long ago. Unfortunately I don't remember all the
details but you could try to do the followig:
- check if the directory 'data' has read/write rights for your OS account
(account under which you try to start postgres).
- check if your OS account has the right
Marcelo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since pg_autovacuum no longer exits on PG 8.4 and it seems that one
> now needs to provide the storage parameters during CREATE TABLE or
> later on with an ALTER TABLE.
> Will that ALTER TABLE block anything going on that table until it's
> finished ? I assume not since
Hi,
The video from "Statistics and Postgres — How the Planner Sees Your
Data," the September 8, 2009 meeting of the SFPUG, is now available on
Vimeo:
http://vimeo.com/7051082
--
-- Christophe Pettus
x...@thebuild.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgre
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt
wrote:
> Peter Hunsberger wrote:
>
> After some tests with a data set of 7983 rows (and 1638 ran-
> ges): Don't! :-) The recursive solution seems to be more
> than double as slow as the iterative. I'll take it to -per-
> formance.
>
Interesting,
Hi,
Could you tell me how to Export ALL plpgsql functions/triggers to file?
Thank you
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> [...]
>> or a recursive query (which I always find very hard to com-
>> prehend):
>> | WITH RECURSIVE RecCols (LeftBoundary, Value) AS
>> | (SELECT col, col FROM t WHERE (col - 1) NOT IN (SELECT col FROM t)
>> | UNION ALL SELECT p.LeftBoundary, c.col FROM RecCols A
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 6:42:39 am Andale wrote:
> Hi
>
> We have an Postgresql 8.2.5 installation on a Windows server 2003 that have
> worked perfectly for our Mediawiki until we tried to update to 8.4. Before
> the update we took a backup, stopped the service and took a copy of the
> entire
On Wednesday 14 October 2009, Reid Thompson wrote:
> So we know have data in ~30 partitioned tables.
> Our requirements now necessitate adding some columns to all these tables
> ( done ) which will get populated via batch sql for the older tables and
> by normal processing as we move forward.
>
>
So we know have data in ~30 partitioned tables.
Our requirements now necessitate adding some columns to all these tables
( done ) which will get populated via batch sql for the older tables and
by normal processing as we move forward.
The batch update is going to result in dead tuples in the older
Mitesh51 wrote:
> I had 2 approach in my mind...to sync up transaction log files with specific
> full backup
>
> 1) to keep only time relavent files in pg_xlog dir and move other files to
> archive dir with code which is not a good idea as u suggest
Postgres is prepared to (and assumes it can) r
>
> SELECT a, nextval('c') as b
> FROM table1
> ORDER BY a DESC LIMIT 5;
>
> I.e., I want to pick the 5 largest entries from table1 and show them
> alongside a new index column that tells the position of the entry. For
> example:
>
> a | b
>
> 82 | 5
> 79 | 4
> 34 | 3
> 12 | 2
> 11 |
I found an article that should help you with the answer:
http://explainextended.com/2009/05/05/postgresql-row-numbers/
ROWNUM is a very useful pseudocolumn in Oracle that returns the
position of each row in a final dataset.
Upcoming PostgreSQL 8.4 will have this pseudocolumn, but as for now
will
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:04:26PM -0500, Andrew Bailey wrote:
> I cant find in the documentation support for a 3 dimensional vector,
> I have only seen the array type, I am interested in doing vector dot
> products and vector cross products, also summing vectors and
> multiplying by a scalar quant
Hello,
Could somebody please try to help me with this problem?
So, let’s say that I have the query:
CREATE SEQUENCE c START 1;
SELECT a, nextval('c') as b
FROM table1
ORDER BY a DESC LIMIT 5;
I.e., I want to pick the 5 largest entries from table1 and show them
alongside a new index column that
Hi,
I cant find in the documentation support for a 3 dimensional vector,
I have only seen the array type, I am interested in doing vector dot
products and vector cross products, also summing vectors and
multiplying by a scalar quantity
select array[1,2,3]+array[2,4,5];
select 2*array[1,2,3];
The
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Tim Landscheidt
wrote:
> Peter Hunsberger wrote:
>
> You can either use a PL/pgSQL function ("SETOF TEXT" just
> for the convenience of the example):
That works well, takes about 20 seconds to do the 6M+ rows
>
> or a recursive query (which I always find very h
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 11:05, [.::MDT::.] wrote:
> Hi,
> I can't find what does
> INSERT 0 1
> mean.
>
> "1" stands for the number of the records added to the table, as far as I
> understood, but what about the "0"?
>
> Thank you very much.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.na
On 14/10/2009 16:05, [.::MDT::.] wrote:
> Hi,
> I can't find what does
> INSERT 0 1
> mean.
>
> "1" stands for the number of the records added to the table, as far as I
> understood, but what about the "0"?
It stands for the OID of the row that was inserted, if the table was
created to use them (
Hi,
I can't find what does
INSERT 0 1
mean.
"1" stands for the number of the records added to the table, as far as I
understood, but what about the "0"?
Thank you very much.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/What-does-%22INSERT-0-1%22-mean--tp25892901p25892901.html
Sent fr
Hi
We have an Postgresql 8.2.5 installation on a Windows server 2003 that have
worked perfectly for our Mediawiki until we tried to update to 8.4. Before
the update we took a backup, stopped the service and took a copy of the
entire database catalog. We could not make the 8.4 (installed in a diff
On 14/10/2009 15:28, Chase, John wrote:
> That makes sense, of course. I'm guessing this is because I formally
> used the pgInstaller and since 8.4 is not supported yet by pgInstaller I
> moved to the EnterpriseDB installer. The man behind the current must
As I understand it, pgInstaller is going
Wow, quick response from Dave Page. For those who may be interested,
here's his answer:
"pgInstaller used floating point, whilst the one-click installers use
(and will continue to use) the more accurate integer timestamps."
-Original Message-
From: Chase, John
Sent: Wednesday, October 14
"Chase, John" writes:
> That makes sense, of course. I'm guessing this is because I formally
> used the pgInstaller and since 8.4 is not supported yet by pgInstaller I
> moved to the EnterpriseDB installer. The man behind the current must
> have done the build with different options. Would you con
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Sam Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:29:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Paul Hartley writes:
> > > ... I'm unclear
> > > if PostgreSQL treats primary keys differently from unique, non-null
> > > constraints.
> >
> > The *only* thing that the system does
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:29:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Paul Hartley writes:
> > ... I'm unclear
> > if PostgreSQL treats primary keys differently from unique, non-null
> > constraints.
>
> The *only* thing that the system does specially with a primary key
> constraint is that a PK creates a
Paul Hartley writes:
> ... I'm unclear
> if PostgreSQL treats primary keys differently from unique, non-null
> constraints.
The *only* thing that the system does specially with a primary key
constraint is that a PK creates a default column target for foreign key
references. For example,
create
That makes sense, of course. I'm guessing this is because I formally
used the pgInstaller and since 8.4 is not supported yet by pgInstaller I
moved to the EnterpriseDB installer. The man behind the current must
have done the build with different options. Would you concur? Maybe I
should ask the man
"Chase, John" writes:
> I am working on upgrading from 8.3.7 to 8.4.1. One of the functions of
> our application is to "export" and "import" data, and to accomplish this
> I've written some functions that use COPY ... TO ... BINARY and COPY ...
> FROM ... BINARY. In testing the upgrade to 8.4.1 I
that's because by default 8.4 uses integer timestamps, instead of whatever
8.3 was using.
and you pretty much use something, that is suppose to be only used within
the scope of the same version and hardware type (and potentially even
build).
Hello,
I am working on upgrading from 8.3.7 to 8.4.1. One of the functions of
our application is to "export" and "import" data, and to accomplish this
I've written some functions that use COPY ... TO ... BINARY and COPY ...
FROM ... BINARY. In testing the upgrade to 8.4.1 I noticed that when I
I want to test the optimizer of postgresql.
Can anyone give me any idea about which kinds of query I should test?
large query for path an geqo?
subquery?
there are certain conditions where PK is required, but apart from that it is
pretty much equivalent of unique not null. Obviously index is created, in
order to keep things unique.
the (col1, col2 DESC) type of index is useful, when you have query that uses
it that way. For example, if your query i
Paul Hartley wrote:
> I have a composite primary key for a table, let's call it
> (col1, col2). When this table is created, obviously an
> implicit index is created for this key. I would like the
> sort order of this index to be different for the two columns
> -- if I were to create the index
On 14/10/2009 2:29 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Craig Ringer
> wrote:
>>
>> A better question might by "why on earth are you messing about with the
>> data directory when you don't understand what it does and how it works?".
>
> Not that anyone wants to discourage
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:22:04PM +, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> Sam Mason wrote:
> > Calculating "(C - B) / C" isn't easy for timestamps, whereas it's easy
> > for dates. I believe this is why there's a specific version for the
> > former but not the latter.
>
> (I obviously meant "(B - A) /
Hello
try to explicit cast
select 't'::boolean;
regards
Pavel Stehule
2009/10/14 Gus Waddell :
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am currently working on an app that is split into several databases with
> the same table but a column with differing data type.
>
> eg. Database 1
> tablename: gp
> column: avai
Hi everyone,
I am currently working on an app that is split into several databases
with the same table but a column with differing data type.
eg. Database 1
tablename: gp
column: available - data type boolean
Database 2
tablename: gp
column: available - data type character(1)
I would lik
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Mitesh51 wrote:
>
> I like that "why on earth are you messing about with the
> data directory when you don't understand what it does and how it works?"
>
> Actully I am not a DB person and having almost ZERO knowledge abt it but I
> am working on an application wh
Hi,
I like that "why on earth are you messing about with the
data directory when you don't understand what it does and how it works?"
Actully I am not a DB person and having almost ZERO knowledge abt it but I
am working on an application which takes backup(full & incremental) of diff
DB like mys
subscribe
--
Oleg Shalnev (Kalpa Project)
--
mailto: o...@kalpa.ru
skype: oleg_shalnev
sip: 17474845...@gizmo5.com
jabber: oleg.shal...@gmail.com
icq:366619571
http://kalpa.ru
I have a composite primary key for a table, let's call it (col1, col2).
When this table is created, obviously an implicit index is created for this
key. I would like the sort order of this index to be different for the two
columns -- if I were to create the index myself, I would pass on (col1, co
41 matches
Mail list logo
