Re: [GENERAL] Upgraded to 9.0.3, No Man Pages

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Adrian Klaver wrote: When I went to check I found my source install of 9.0.3 did not install docs. Comparing the GNUMakefiles from an 8.4 and 9.0.3 install shows that the docs have been split out to the targets docs: and install-docs: and are no longer in the targets all: an

Re: [GENERAL] Upgraded to 9.0.3, No Man Pages

On Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:36:36 am Bruce Momjian wrote: > Rich Shepard wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I don't think we ever researched how to install manual pages in all the > > > distributions. /share does make sense; not sure why that doesn't > > > happen. > > >

Re: [GENERAL] equivalent of mysql's SET type?

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Dmitriy Igrishin wrote: > 2011/3/9 John R Pierce >> >> On 03/08/11 5:06 PM, Reece Hart wrote: >>> >>> I'm considering porting a MySQL database to PostgreSQL. That database >>> uses MySQL's SET type. Does anyone have advice about representing this type >>> in Postg

Re: [GENERAL] equivalent of mysql's SET type?

2011/3/9 John R Pierce > On 03/08/11 5:06 PM, Reece Hart wrote: > >> I'm considering porting a MySQL database to PostgreSQL. That database uses >> MySQL's SET type. Does anyone have advice about representing this type in >> PostgreSQL? >> >> MySQL DDL excerpt: >> CREATE TABLE `transcript_variatio

Re: [GENERAL] equivalent of mysql's SET type?

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Reece Hart wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> >> create type validation_flags as >> ( >>  cluster bool, >>  freq bool >> ); > > Wow. That solution is nearly sexy, and far and away better than any solution > that I would have come up

Re: [GENERAL] Upgraded to 9.0.3, No Man Pages

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Bruce Momjian wrote: Odd. How did you do the install? Via source? Yep. For reasons the package maintainer and I could not figure out, the SlackBuild.org package script failed to build 9.0.1 so I installed from the source tarball. Did the same with 9.0.3: configure; mak

Re: [GENERAL] equivalent of mysql's SET type?

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > create type validation_flags as > ( > cluster bool, > freq bool > ); > Wow. That solution is nearly sexy, and far and away better than any solution that I would have come up with. Thanks, Merlin! -Reece

Re: [GENERAL] Upgraded to 9.0.3, No Man Pages

Rich Shepard wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I don't think we ever researched how to install manual pages in all the > > distributions. /share does make sense; not sure why that doesn't happen. > > Bruce, > >That's where they were installed with 9.0.1 and that's whe

Re: [GENERAL] Upgraded to 9.0.3, No Man Pages

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Bruce Momjian wrote: I don't think we ever researched how to install manual pages in all the distributions. /share does make sense; not sure why that doesn't happen. Bruce, That's where they were installed with 9.0.1 and that's where I expected to find them after upgra

Re: [GENERAL] Upgraded to 9.0.3, No Man Pages

Rich Shepard wrote: >Somehow, when I installed 9.0.3 the man pages weren't installed. They're > in the source tree but not in /usr/local/pgsql/share/ so I cannot make a > symlink to /usr/share/man. > >Might this be something in the 'make install' script? > >I'll manually install them.

Re: [GENERAL] Why length(to_char(1::integer, '9')) = 2 ?

2011/3/10 Bruce Momjian > Dmitriy Igrishin wrote: > > dmitigr=> SELECT '>'||to_char(0.1, '0.9')||'<' AS v; > > v > > > > > 0.1< > > > > dmitigr=> SELECT '>'||to_char(0.1, 'FM0.9')||'<' AS v; > >v > > --- > > >0.1< > > > > So, padding zeroes suppressed by FM

Re: [GENERAL] Why length(to_char(1::integer, '9')) = 2 ?

Dmitriy Igrishin wrote: > dmitigr=> SELECT '>'||to_char(0.1, '0.9')||'<' AS v; > v > > > 0.1< > > dmitigr=> SELECT '>'||to_char(0.1, 'FM0.9')||'<' AS v; >v > --- > >0.1< > > So, padding zeroes suppressed by FM is a rest of the value. Any documentation chan

[GENERAL] Upgraded to 9.0.3, No Man Pages

Somehow, when I installed 9.0.3 the man pages weren't installed. They're in the source tree but not in /usr/local/pgsql/share/ so I cannot make a symlink to /usr/share/man. Might this be something in the 'make install' script? I'll manually install them. Rich -- Sent via pgsql-general ma

Re: [GENERAL] sort mem: size in RAM vs size on Disk

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > What version of PostgreSQL are you using? sort_mem is now called > work_mem (to better reflect the reality that it isn't just used in > sorting, I think), and has been for some time. > > -- > Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com

Re: [GENERAL] Post-Upgrade Question: 9.0.1 -> 9.0.3

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Adrian Klaver wrote: My guess is you did a Postgres client only package install at some point:) Not consciously. When I upgraded from 8.4 to 9.0.1 last December everything moved from /var/lib/pgsql to /usr/local/psql. The build/install date on the executable /bin/psql ma

Re: [GENERAL] Post-Upgrade Question: 9.0.1 -> 9.0.3

On Thursday, March 10, 2011 8:11:37 am Rich Shepard wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > Your psql binary is from 9.0.1 your server from 9.0.3. Somewhere you have > > the old psql in your path and it is being found first. > > Adrian, > >Found it. There was an executable /bin

Re: [GENERAL] Post-Upgrade Question: 9.0.1 -> 9.0.3

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Adrian Klaver wrote: Your psql binary is from 9.0.1 your server from 9.0.3. Somewhere you have the old psql in your path and it is being found first. Adrian, Found it. There was an executable /bin/psql in addition to /usr/local/psql/bin/psql. I've no idea how the former

Re: [GENERAL] Post-Upgrade Question: 9.0.1 -> 9.0.3

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Adrian Klaver wrote: Your psql binary is from 9.0.1 your server from 9.0.3. Somewhere you have the old psql in your path and it is being found first. Huh! Wonder how that happened. I moved /usr/local/pgsql/ to /usr/local/pgsql.9.0.1 and installed 9.0.3 into /usr/local.

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 Trigger question

Thank you for the link Merlin. > Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:22:13 -0600 > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 Trigger question > From: mmonc...@gmail.com > To: michaelblack75...@hotmail.com > CC: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Michael Black > wrote: > > The following fro

Re: [GENERAL] sort mem: size in RAM vs size on Disk

What version of PostgreSQL are you using? sort_mem is now called work_mem (to better reflect the reality that it isn't just used in sorting, I think), and has been for some time. -- Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services --

Re: [GENERAL] Post-Upgrade Question: 9.0.1 -> 9.0.3

On Thursday, March 10, 2011 6:54:18 am Rich Shepard wrote: >After carefully following the instructions here: > > I tested the upgrade from the command line. My question is why I still see > a reference to 9.0.1; > > psql

[GENERAL] Post-Upgrade Question: 9.0.1 -> 9.0.3

After carefully following the instructions here: I tested the upgrade from the command line. My question is why I still see a reference to 9.0.1; psql (9.0.1, server 9.0.3) Type "help" for help. One database was created

Re: [GENERAL] Using bytea field...

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Sim Zacks wrote: > >> > The question is, if it screws up and says that an image already exists >> > and then returns a different image when querying for it, how bad would >> > that be. >> > >> >> >> It'll never happen: >> >> >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/86

Re: [GENERAL] Reinterpreting BYTEA as TEXT, converting BYTEA to TEXT

Aha! :) Why haven't I used convert_from() -- my ultimate abominable goal is to do an in-place migration of an SQL_ASCII database (LC_TYPE/COLLATION="C") to UTF8 (LC_TYPE/COLLATION="C"), where the string data in the SQL_ASCII database is in some encoding, say LATIN1, and where the bulk of the data

[GENERAL] sort mem: size in RAM vs size on Disk

Hi all, I am wondering if anyone has any estimates on how much larger a working set for a sort is when the query execution puts it in memory vs when it spills out to disk. It seems like sorts in memory are larger than they are if they still out to disk. (which I could understand), I am just looki

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 Trigger question

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Michael Black wrote: > The following from 9.1 documentation on triggers > > "SQL allows you to define aliases for the "old" and "new" rows or tables for > use in the definition of the triggered action (e.g., CREATE TRIGGER ... ON > tablename REFERENCING OLD ROW

Re: [GENERAL] output screen in psql

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 05:51:51PM -0800, abcdef wrote: > Hi, I use postgres in red hat linux . > When I use psql and select the content of the table . > I find the format is not tidy . > I change align and unalign , the output is not filful my requirement. > Any special setting that can change the

Re: [GENERAL] "could not accept SSPI security context"

That's great! I'm glad to hear it. Thank you very much for providing patches for this issue. -- Sent from my Android phone Francisco Figueiredo Jr. Npgsql lead developer fxjr.blogspot.com twitter.com/franciscojunior Em 10/03/2011 09:01, "Ahmed Shinwari" escreveu: > Hi Fransisco, > > I tested t

Re: [GENERAL] "could not accept SSPI security context"

Hi Fransisco, I tested the latest Npgsql driver (2.0.12.0), the issue has been fixed. I was able to connect Npgsql test application from my Windows XP client machine with the PostgreSQL server running on Windows 2003 Server. Thank you for applying the patch. On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Ahm

Re: [GENERAL] Ad hoc report writer

On 03/10/2011 12:36 PM, ray wrote: On Jan 17, 3:39 pm, byrn...@harte-lyne.ca ("James B. Byrne") wrote: I have occasion to produce reports from our PostgreSQL database which are ephemeral. In a previous life on CODASYL installation I used areportwriter called QUIZ to dash these things off. Is th

Re: [GENERAL] Ad hoc report writer

On Jan 17, 3:39 pm, byrn...@harte-lyne.ca ("James B. Byrne") wrote: > I have occasion to produce reports from our PostgreSQL database > which are ephemeral. In a previous life on CODASYL installation I > used areportwriter called QUIZ to dash these things off.  Is there > anything of a similar natu

Re: [GENERAL] Using bytea field...

> The question is, if it screws up and says that an image already exists > and then returns a different image when querying for it, how bad would > that be. > It'll never happen: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/862346/how-do-i-assess-the-hash-collision-probability Sure you CAN go out of