On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> I thought I was clear that my experiences thus far had not been
> RHEL/CentOS/SL because I tended to compile my own on such platforms. I have
> however seen Fedora do that, and it is a caution worth noting going forward.
>
> The question is w
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 7:39 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 03/03/12 7:01 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> On the negative, I have seen a yum-based upgrade between versions happily
>> upgrade the binaries from 8.4.x to 9.0.x
>>
>
> I haven't.
>
>
I thought I was clear that my experiences thus far
On 03/03/12 7:01 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
On the negative, I have seen a yum-based upgrade between versions
happily upgrade the binaries from 8.4.x to 9.0.x
I haven't.
the PG 9.x yum packages not only have a different name, they install
into different directories. here I have dead stock
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM, David Boreham wrote:
> On 3/3/2012 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>
>> [ raised eyebrow... ] As the person responsible for the packaging
>> you're dissing, I'd be interested to know exactly why you feel that
>> the Red Hat/CentOS PG packages "can never be trusted". C
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM, David Boreham wrote:
> I stick by my opinion that anyone who goes with the OS-bundled version of a
> database server, for any sort of serious production use, is making a
> mistake.
I would qualify this.
If you accept the OS-bundled version, you are relinquishing
r
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 8:23 PM, David Boreham wrote:
> On 3/3/2012 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>> [ raised eyebrow... ] As the person responsible for the packaging
>> you're dissing, I'd be interested to know exactly why you feel that
>> the Red Hat/CentOS PG packages "can never be trusted".
On 3/3/2012 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
[ raised eyebrow... ] As the person responsible for the packaging
you're dissing, I'd be interested to know exactly why you feel that
the Red Hat/CentOS PG packages "can never be trusted". Certainly they
tend to be from older release branches as a result of
David Boreham writes:
> Long thread - figured may as well toss in some data:
> We use CentOS 5 and 6 and install PG from the yum repository detailed on
> the postgresql.org web site.
> We've found that the PG shipped as part of the OS can never be trusted
> for production use, so we don't care
Long thread - figured may as well toss in some data:
We use CentOS 5 and 6 and install PG from the yum repository detailed on
the postgresql.org web site.
We've found that the PG shipped as part of the OS can never be trusted
for production use, so we don't care what version ships with the OS
On 03/03/12 2:55 AM, Gavin Flower wrote:
My knowledge of Debian is via friend's (an extremely competent and
experienced Unix guy who got me into Linux & who still runs Debian)
comments and what I've noticed on the web. For a Desktop development
machine, I currently prefer Fedora, but for a s
On 03/03/12 23:33, Leif Biberg Kristensen wrote:
Lørdag 3. mars 2012 01.43.29 skrev Gavin Flower :
I think if you are going to select a member of the Debian family, I
would strongly recommend Debian itself. I have the impression that the
Debian community is more serious about quality than Can
Hi guys!
There's a way to mix characters with utf-8 characters on the same query.
Some thing like this:
Character: "." (dot)
UTF-8: *\u002E*
(requisite* can't use regex*)
For this normal query:
select * from foo where email like 'em...@company.com '
Some thing like this:
select * from foo w
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Tyler Durden wrote:
> Hi,
> I can't figure out why query planner doesn't use the proper index, anyone
> can help me?
>
> This query properly uses indexes:
>
> mydb=# EXPLAIN SELECT U0."object_id" FROM "activity_follow" U0 WHERE
> (U0."content_type_id" = 3 AND U0."us
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> Two quick notes:
>
> First, you really want a long-term support release. Your main options here
> are Debian and spinoffs (Ubuntu LTS, for example) and RedHat Enterprise and
> spinoffs (CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc). If you know one of thes
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Leif Biberg Kristensen
> wrote:
>> My current gripe is this: The «stable» version of Postgres on Debian is 8.4.
>> In order to install 9.1...
>> This seems a rather roundabout way, is there a better one?
>
> W
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Leif Biberg Kristensen
wrote:
>
> My current gripe is this: The «stable» version of Postgres on Debian is 8.4.
> In order to install 9.1, I added this line to /etc/apt/sources.list:
>
> deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free
>
> Then I did a
Lørdag 3. mars 2012 12.34.27 skrev Raymond O'Donnell :
> You can get Postgres 9.1 from backports.debian.org:
>
> deb http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports squeeze-backports main
Ah, sweet, thank you!
regards, Leif
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
T
On 03/03/2012 11:16, Andrus wrote:
> I’m looking for a way to build web site which uses PostgreSql to store
> web pages and allow users to modify them.
>
> Admin user should able to create and changed pages using html editor
> from browser.
> Site runs in Debian Squeeze x64 VPS using Apache. Ther
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Leif Biberg Kristensen
wrote:
> My current gripe is this: The «stable» version of Postgres on Debian is 8.4.
> In order to install 9.1...
> This seems a rather roundabout way, is there a better one?
We use Debian at work, and I went for the other favorite way of
ge
On 03/03/2012 10:33, Leif Biberg Kristensen wrote:
> Lørdag 3. mars 2012 01.43.29 skrev Gavin Flower :
>
>> I think if you are going to select a member of the Debian family, I
>> would strongly recommend Debian itself. I have the impression that the
>> Debian community is more serious about quali
I’m looking for a way to build web site which uses PostgreSql to store web
pages and allow users to modify them.
Admin user should able to create and changed pages using html editor from
browser.
Site runs in Debian Squeeze x64 VPS using Apache. There are Mono 2.8 and
PostgreSql 9.1 applicatio
Two quick notes:
First, you really want a long-term support release. Your main options here
are Debian and spinoffs (Ubuntu LTS, for example) and RedHat Enterprise and
spinoffs (CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc). If you know one of these groups
go with it.
Second, GUI's usually come separate from
Lørdag 3. mars 2012 01.43.29 skrev Gavin Flower :
> I think if you are going to select a member of the Debian family, I
> would strongly recommend Debian itself. I have the impression that the
> Debian community is more serious about quality than Canonical (the
> company behind Ubuntu).
I haven'
On 02/03/12 01:25, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 28/02/2012 18:17, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, mgo...@isstrucksoftware.net wrote:
If we move to Linux, what is the preferred Linux for running Postgres
on. This machine would be dedicated to the database only.
Michael,
There is no 'prefe
> Roles are global to a cluster. If you do a pg_dump you will get only
> the information/data for a particular database. If you do pg_dumpall
> you will get the information/data for all the databases in the
> cluster as well as the cluster wide information.
Thanks a lot for pointing this out. I w
25 matches
Mail list logo
