On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Joshua J. Kugler wrote:
>
> So, a "getting started" guide and/or cookbook would be great. Another
> cool idea: a MySQL -> PostgreSQL migration guide (I'm sure there's
> already one out there) that would show "To do *this* MySQL function in
> PostgreSQL, use this f
Is there some justification for this behavior that I should know already? It
seemed awfully strange when some folkds here stumbled on it:
$ create user a;
$ create user b;
$ commit;
$ \c - a
$ create table foo (id integer primary key);
$ revoke all on foo from a;
$ grant all on foo to b;
$ commit;
On Friday 06 August 2010, Scott Marlowe elucidated thus:
> >> Everyone of my trainees want such thing - for databases, for other
> >> programming-languages etc. It's the worst thing you can give them.
> >> The< will copy, they will paste and they will understand nothing.
> >> Learning is the way to
On 06/08/2010 21:15, Peter Bex wrote:
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:09:43PM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I'm all in favor of a nice tutorial section in the docs. But I
certainly don't want pgsql docs to mimick the mysql docs method of
using a tutorial method for most of the beginner information. I
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 03:57:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
- David Kerr writes:
- > On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 03:49:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
- > - In recent versions of PG, no. Before about 8.3 it was a Really Bad Idea,
- > - because the open transaction would prevent VACUUM from reclaiming stora
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:25:27PM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> For an extra added bonus, show a click-path from the front page
>> mysql.com to the documentation. I gave up and just entered
>> mysql.com/documentation which kicked off the search
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:25:27PM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> For an extra added bonus, show a click-path from the front page
> mysql.com to the documentation. I gave up and just entered
> mysql.com/documentation which kicked off the search engine and let me
> click somewhere into the 5.1 docs.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:09:43PM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> I'm all in favor of a nice tutorial section in the docs. But I
>> certainly don't want pgsql docs to mimick the mysql docs method of
>> using a tutorial method for most of the begi
In my fondest moments, I consider myself a nerd, and when I do I think
I am completely cool.
On Aug 6, 2010, at 9:38 PM, zach cruise wrote:
john, you're running up against a culture here, and trying to answer
the question: how to make a nerd cool? answer: it can't be done.
--
Sent via pgsql-
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:09:43PM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> I'm all in favor of a nice tutorial section in the docs. But I
> certainly don't want pgsql docs to mimick the mysql docs method of
> using a tutorial method for most of the beginner information. It's so
> dang hard to find anything
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:38 PM, zach cruise wrote:
> john, you're running up against a culture here, and trying to answer
> the question: how to make a nerd cool? answer: it can't be done.
I'm all in favor of a nice tutorial section in the docs. But I
certainly don't want pgsql docs to mimick th
john, you're running up against a culture here, and trying to answer
the question: how to make a nerd cool? answer: it can't be done.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Scott Frankel wrote:
>
> On Aug 6, 2010, at 6:13 AM, Torsten Zühlsdorff wrote:
>
>> John Gage schrieb:
>>
>>> On reflection, I think what is needed is a handbook that features cut and
>>> paste code to do the things with Postgres that people do today with MySQL.
>>
> That last message prints tups_vacuumed, but those other ones are counting
> all the removed item pointers. So apparently Gordon had a whole lot of
> pre-existing DEAD item pointers. I wonder why ...
Perhaps this will help. Here's the entire test.
Start with a newly loaded table with 5,063,4
Thom Brown writes:
> On 6 August 2010 17:49, Denis BUCHER wrote:
>> I was unable to stop postgres, I always got "[FAILED] :
>> * /etc/init.d/postgresql stop
>> * service postgresql stop
>> * /sbin/service postgresql stop
> Surely it depends what the packager put into the init.d script? Plus
On 6 August 2010 17:49, Denis BUCHER wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> For once, I will simply publish a solution instead of asking a question.
> Let's hope it will be useful to someone.
>
> I was unable to stop postgres, I always got "[FAILED] :
> * /etc/init.d/postgresql stop
> * service postgresql stop
On Aug 6, 2010, at 6:13 AM, Torsten Zühlsdorff wrote:
John Gage schrieb:
On reflection, I think what is needed is a handbook that features
cut and paste code to do the things with Postgres that people do
today with MySQL.
Everyone of my trainees want such thing - for databases, for other
Dear all,
For once, I will simply publish a solution instead of asking a question.
Let's hope it will be useful to someone.
I was unable to stop postgres, I always got "[FAILED] :
* /etc/init.d/postgresql stop
* service postgresql stop
* /sbin/service postgresql stop
The only solution that
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Brad Nicholson's message of vie ago 06 12:01:27 -0400 2010:
>> It found 45878 dead tuples in 396 pages for the index authors_archive_pkey.
>> It found 16558 dead tuples in 492 pages for the table authors_archive.
> But why did it choose to skip the rest of t
Yes, and also from the original post:
> 3 INFO: scanned index "authors_archive_pkey" to remove 45878 row
> versions
> 4 DETAIL: CPU 0.05s/0.34u sec elapsed 0.41 sec.
> 5 INFO: "authors_archive": removed 45878 row versions in 396 pages
> 6 DETAIL: CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
Lin
Excerpts from Brad Nicholson's message of vie ago 06 12:01:27 -0400 2010:
> On 10-08-06 11:45 AM, Gordon Shannon wrote:
> > OK, so if it knew that all vacuumable tuples could be found in 492 pages,
> > and
> > it scanned only those pages, then how could it be that it reports 16558
> > removable
On 10-08-06 11:45 AM, Gordon Shannon wrote:
OK, so if it knew that all vacuumable tuples could be found in 492 pages, and
it scanned only those pages, then how could it be that it reports 16558
removable tuples from those 492 pages, when it has already reported earlier
that it removed 45878 tupl
I would also enquire whether one thinks that the examples should be
removed from the Postgres documentation for fear that they may be cut
and pasted into an application?
John
On Aug 6, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Torsten Zühlsdorff wrote:
John Gage schrieb:
On reflection, I think what is needed is
OK, so if it knew that all vacuumable tuples could be found in 492 pages, and
it scanned only those pages, then how could it be that it reports 16558
removable tuples from those 492 pages, when it has already reported earlier
that it removed 45878 tuples -- a number we know in fact to be correct?
If I recall correctly William Shakespeare did a ton of cutting and
pasting. And he was not alone. My Fair Lady, one of the most
successful Broadway shows ever, contains whole sections from Shaw's
play.
We learn by imitation. I am not suggesting that once you cut and
paste you call it q
I only said this to criticize it. And I agree completely with Thomas.
John
On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
John Gage wrote on 06.08.2010 04:41:
But most people, including myself, don't even want to know the
documentation exists (for anything). We just want to plunge in an
Joshua Tolley writes:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:10:30PM +1000, Data Growth Pty Ltd wrote:
>> Is there any significant performance problem associated with partitioning
>> a table into 2500 sub-tables? I realise a table scan would be horrendous,
>> but what if all accesses specified the partitio
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:10:30PM +1000, Data Growth Pty Ltd wrote:
>Is there any significant performance problem associated with partitioning
>a table into 2500 sub-tables? I realise a table scan would be horrendous,
>but what if all accesses specified the partitioning criteria "sid"
Scott Marlowe writes:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:00 PM, andi astowo wrote:
>> We are sorry but our Postgre 8.3 is bundled with our new RHEL 5.
Say what? Red Hat has never shipped Postgres 8.3 in RHEL.
Currently you can get 8.1 or 8.4 in RHEL-5 (and I'd definitely recommend
using 8.4).
David Fetter writes:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 01:35:58PM +0900, ë
¸íì wrote:
>> when using oracle sqlplus.. we can specify password.
>> $ sqlplus system/manager
>>
>> Could you teach me, How can we specify password when using psql
>> $ psql -p 5432 -h rac2 -d mydb -U hsnoh
>> Password f
John Gage schrieb:
On reflection, I think what is needed is a handbook that features cut
and paste code to do the things with Postgres that people do today with
MySQL.
Everyone of my trainees want such thing - for databases, for other
programming-languages etc. It's the worst thing you can g
On reflection, I think what is needed is a handbook that features cut
and paste code to do the things with Postgres that people do today
with MySQL.
Such a handbook, featured as the first section of the documentation,
would take readers through the steps necessary to set up an online
shop
John Gage wrote on 06.08.2010 04:41:
But most people, including myself, don't even want to know the
documentation exists (for anything). We just want to plunge in and do it.
That just doesn't work and is an attitude that won't get you far.
In order to do things properly you need to learn and u
On 6 August 2010 16:08, Torsten Zühlsdorff wrote:
>
> I receive my "oh wow" when i do the same things in Postgres like in MySQL:
> Writting some procedures, triggers and use foreign key. The "oh wow" was
> that it just *works*. After some years of using MySQL this is a very
> uncommon feeling, ev
On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 14:49 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > Why can't I see psql there? Is it just because that logging is
> performed
> > just before detecting application name?
>
> Yes. The backend checks whether target database exists, before
> processing application name.
Thanks.
Regards,
--
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:00 PM, andi astowo wrote:
> Well, that's a pretty big step up. Are you running 7.0, 7.1, 7.2,
> 7.3, or 7.4? Do you want to go to 8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 or 8.4?
>
> We are running at 7.1 and to go to 8.3.
>
> The normally recommended procedure is to bring up a new machine w
John Gage schrieb:
So, perhaps what is needed in any sort of battle with MySQL is an
introductory documentation that gives specific examples of how to
achieve "oh wow!" worthwhile results quickly with Postgres.
I receive my "oh wow" when i do the same things in Postgres like in
MySQL: Writti
37 matches
Mail list logo
