Eduardo Morras wrote:
>> >
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >if I understand this right, it does not mean "check if the string
>> >appears at position 0"
>> >which could translate into an index query, but rather "check if the
>> >string appears anywhere
>> >and then check if that is position 0", so the entire ta
~
Well, at least I thought you would tell me where the postgresql-base
is to be found. The last version I found is:
~
http://freebsd.csie.nctu.edu.tw/pub/distfiles/postgresql/postgresql-base-8.3beta2.tar.bz2
~
and I wondered what that is and why there are no postgresql-base
after "8.3beta2"
~
>
Hi, everyone. Daniel Verite
wrote:
How much bytea are you dumping for it to take only 0.066s?
The fact that it takes about the same time than dumping the "empty content"
looks very suspicious.
On my desktop machine, if I create a table with 1000 blobs conta
> ~
> I have been searching for a PostgreSQL-derived project with a
> "less-is-best" Philosophy. Even though I have read about quite a bit
> of PG forks out there, what I have in mind is more like a baseline
> than a fork.
> ~
> My intention is not wrapping the same thing in a different package
Based on your description, I suggest you might want to look at SQLite. It
provides a number of compile-time options where you can exclude various features
you don't want from the binary, when simply ignoring the extra features isn't
good enough. -- Darren Duncan
Albretch Mueller wrote:
~
I
On Sep 24, 2011, at 22:54, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> Do you see any usefulness in such a project?
> ~
> Do you know of such a project? Anyone interested? Any suggestions to
> someone embarking in it?
> ~
> It would be great if PG developers see any good in it and do it themselves ;-)
> ~
> lbrtchx
> ~
> I have been searching for a PostgreSQL-derived project with a
> "less-is-best" Philosophy. Even though I have read about quite a bit
> of PG forks out there, what I have in mind is more like a baseline
> than a fork.
> ~
> My intention is not wrapping the same thing in a different package o
Dear List ,
It is been found that the entry
local all all trust
does not renders below redundant in pg_hba.conf
local replication replicator01 trust
regds
mallah.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make
~
I have been searching for a PostgreSQL-derived project with a
"less-is-best" Philosophy. Even though I have read about quite a bit
of PG forks out there, what I have in mind is more like a baseline
than a fork.
~
My intention is not wrapping the same thing in a different package or
code add-ons
On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 14:43 -0500, Neil Tiffin wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>
> > On 09/23/2011 02:33 PM, Neil Tiffin wrote:
> >> I have shared_buffers in the config file set for 32 MB and pgAdmin
> >> reports a value of 32 MB, but pgAdmin also says the current value is
On 09/24/11 2:07 PM, Gregg Jaskiewicz wrote:
My apps share same databases, so no good in that. And I am very well
aware of the new feature in 9.0 - but we're stuck in the 8.3 land for
now.
you can still give the various apps different user accounts (roles) even
if they all have to have the sam
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 00:07, Gregg Jaskiewicz wrote:
> My apps share same databases, so no good in that.
How about different users? You can create a separate user for each
application, and then GRANT them access to a single role.
Regards,
Marti
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-g
My apps share same databases, so no good in that. And I am very well
aware of the new feature in 9.0 - but we're stuck in the 8.3 land for
now.
So far I managed to hack together a netstat+awk+other command line
tools to get that information. (in your face - windows "server"
developers/admins :P)
-
On Saturday, September 24, 2011 12:34:02 pm Raghavendra wrote:
> Respected All,
>
> In which case $PGDATA/base/database-oid/PG_VERSION file updates ?
>
> I have observed, PG_VERSION file is created at DB creation time and will
> never get
> updated. I mean file PG_VERSION TIMESTAMP.
See here:
ht
On Sep 24, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 09/23/2011 02:33 PM, Neil Tiffin wrote:
>> I have shared_buffers in the config file set for 32 MB and pgAdmin
>> reports a value of 32 MB, but pgAdmin also says the current value is
>> 4096. Can anyone point me to any docs about why the current
Thanks, this is exactly what I was looking for. The listed commands that
grab the ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock are the ones we have to watch out for.
Tim
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2011 3:52:54 pm Timothy Garnett wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was wo
Respected All,
In which case $PGDATA/base/database-oid/PG_VERSION file updates ?
I have observed, PG_VERSION file is created at DB creation time and will
never get
updated. I mean file PG_VERSION TIMESTAMP.
Thanks in advance.
---
Regards,
Raghavendra
EnterpriseDB Corporation
Blog: http://raghav
On Saturday, September 24, 2011 7:16:11 am Roger Niederland wrote:
> On 9/23/2011 5:18 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2011 7:26:19 am Roger Niederland wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2011 6:46 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:00:10PM -0700, Roger Nied
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 17:16, Roger Niederland wrote:
> Just did not expect that the compression would be removed for plain files.
Agreed, I'd say this is a regression that I would like to see
addressed in PostgreSQL 9.1.1. I'm sure you won't be the only to be
surprised by this.
The fact that t
On 09/23/2011 02:33 PM, Neil Tiffin wrote:
> I have shared_buffers in the config file set for 32 MB and pgAdmin
> reports a value of 32 MB, but pgAdmin also says the current value is
> 4096. Can anyone point me to any docs about why the current value
> may be different than the config value? Temp
On Friday, September 23, 2011 3:52:54 pm Timothy Garnett wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was wondering if there was some good documentation on what kinds of
> schema modifications block reads vs. which ones don't. For ex. we
> recently had an issue where someone ran as part of a migration
>
> ALTER TABLE
Hello all,
I am hoping someone can help me with 9.0.4 server on 8GB Mac w/Snow Leopard and
shared_buffers configuration setting.
I have shared_buffers in the config file set for 32 MB and pgAdmin reports a
value of 32 MB, but pgAdmin also says the current value is 4096. Can anyone
point me
Mmmh sorry for my ignorance,
I just learnt that PG 9.0 includes a built in replication.
My first PG install was in 1998, what a pleasure how
PG became today...
long life to PG community
Franck
- Original Message -
From: "Jaime Casanova"
To: "e-blokos"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, September
Hi all,
I was wondering if there was some good documentation on what kinds of schema
modifications block reads vs. which ones don't. For ex. we recently had an
issue where someone ran as part of a migration
ALTER TABLE tname ALTER COLUMN cname SET NOT NULL;
on a large table that is not inserted
On 9/23/2011 5:18 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On Friday, September 23, 2011 7:26:19 am Roger Niederland wrote:
On 9/23/2011 6:46 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:00:10PM -0700, Roger Niederland wrote:
Using pg_dump from the command line with the exe included in wi
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 13:34, Gregg Jaskiewicz wrote:
> Basically, I got bunch of local processes connecting to postgresql,
> need to aggregate some sort of report about number of connections and
> its origin every so often.
The pg_stat_activity system view gives you the database name (datname)
At 14:12 23/09/2011, haman...@t-online.de wrote:
Eduardo Morras wrote:
>> You can try these, i doubt they will use any index but its a
>> different approach:
>>
>> select * from items where
length(items.code)<>length(rtrim(items.code,'ABC'));
>>
>> select * from items where strpos(items.code,'
Oh, neat.
And I'll call myself wizard. People will think I am one...
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
28 matches
Mail list logo
