I'm wondering why the PG installer won't allow an install within a terminal
session (Windows remote desktop). Is there an easy answer to this one?
Thanks!
A. Mous
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to
ys
connected, so when the number of connections is reported as zero, I have a
dilemma because I know that this is impossible (since the query was issued
to the postmaster in the first place).
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: May 5, 2005 11:22 AM
To:
I've been using 8.0 ever since beta 1, and am currently on 8.0.1. I have
noticed (in each version) that the number of records in the pg_stat_activity
table is not always representative of the number of connections to the
server. That is, we have an installation at a client's site that runs a
nigh
This snippit (below) is exactly what you need to connect (assuming you have
set up a system DSN after having installed the ODBC driver). Use VB6, Ado
(2.7 for example) and the postgreSQL ODBC and you're off. SQL constructs
are passed through exactly as shown below. I've been doing it before this
l for your help and insight on this one, although I'm still
puzzled by the behaviour on the win2K boxes serving locally.
Cheers.
-Original Message-
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 12:04 PM
To: Tom Lane; A. Mous
Cc: Richard Huxton; pgsql-ge
Message-
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 12:04 PM
To: Tom Lane; A. Mous
Cc: Richard Huxton; pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Joshua D. Drake; Lincoln
Yeoh; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Simple query takes a long time on win2K
> > The confusing t
be it psql or pgAdminIII)?
I'll let you all know how the winXP test on the PII goes. Thank you all for
your insights.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 9:51 AM
To: A. Mous
Cc: 'Richard Huxton'; pgsql-general@postgres
Yeah, thanks. I did see that post about the QoS and it doesn't help in this
case.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 9:51 AM
To: A. Mous
Cc: 'Richard Huxton'; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Simple que
Queries are issued from, and time values are report in pgAdminIII.
-Original Message-
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 9:31 AM
To: A. Mous; Richard Huxton
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Simple query takes a long time on win2K
So, does this lend evidence to the theory that the difference is due to
insufficient RAM in all of the win2K pro machines?
-Original Message-
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 9:29 AM
To: A. Mous; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [GENERAL
-
From: Lincoln Yeoh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 7:51 AM
To: A. Mous; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Simple query takes a long time on win2K
They are quite different hardware.
How long does it take for the _first_ time you do the query on the Celeron
machine?
cords are served up in about 300ms! Much faster than
simply performing the exact same query locally on the PII.
Now I'm really confused!
Any ideas?
-Original Message-
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 4:43 AM
To: A. Mous; pgsql-general@post
earlier version of postgres and do a little test.
Stay tuned...
-Original Message-
From: Richard Huxton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 23, 2005 4:29 AM
To: A. Mous
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Simple query takes a long time on win2K
A. Mous wrote:
>
Hi,
I have a table with about 1500 records. My query is very basic: SELECT *
FROM foo;
With postgres 8.0.1 on Win XP (Celeron 2400, 500MB RAM) it returns the
results in about 80ms. The same query on the same database, tested on three
different win2k machines all running 8.0.1, takes roughly 4 s
Hooray! Thank you to all responsible for and involved in this great
release! This database truly rocks!
:)
-Original Message-
From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: January 19, 2005 6:03 AM
To: pgsql-announce@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: P
OK, that’s three so far that are
experiencing the exact same problem. Does anyone in the know have any
suggestions as to how this can be resolved?
Much thanks,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Edgars Diebelis
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December
28, 2004 5:41
-23 16:55:17 LOG: all server processes terminated; reinitializing
If I switch the listen_addresses parameter back to localhost', I can connect
to the DB in PgAdmin from the server screen or remote acces.
Those these information help you ?
""A. Mous"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écri
ROTECTED]
Sent: December 22, 2004 10:50 AM
To: A. Mous; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] 8.0 Beta3 worked, RC1 didn't!
Ok, then the problem has nothing to do with SSL. IIRC, you get this
error message if you have SSL support compiled in (which the MSI version
does) and get a
d let you know how it went.
Also, Beta5 exhibited the same behaviour as RC1!
-Original Message-
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 22, 2004 3:05 AM
To: A. Mous; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] 8.0 Beta3 worked, RC1 didn't!
> Hi all,
>
Original Message-
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 21, 2004 8:06 PM
To: A. Mous
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 8.0 Beta3 worked, RC1 didn't!
A. Mous wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I'm using psql 8.0.0 on a client's site who&
Hi all,
I'm using psql 8.0.0 on a client's site who's running win server 2003.
We've had him on beta 3 for some time, and no problems at all (yes, in a
sense, he is a beta tester as well, but doesn't know it!). Today I tried to
upgrade the db to RC1 and had some problems.
Remote clients connect
You could switch to Beta 8 right now and start your testing. We've been
using it since the first beta came out, and it's been rock solid for us.
Mind you, we are limiting our use to simple selects/updates/inserts.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
Hi,
I've got clients connected to pgsql via ODBC. If they lose their connection
abruptly, all un-committed transactions are automatically rolled-back (I'm
assuming) but is there anything left behind that needs to be cleaned up on
the server side with regards to the uncommitted transaction(s)?
Mu
Not sure if this is a win installer issue or Microsoft MDAC issue...
I've installed the win32 pg8.0 beta2 dev3 along with the accompanying ODBC
that is packaged with the installer. Works great, love it, and all the
rest. My application uses ADO 2.7 to interface with the ODBC driver.
My applicat
24 matches
Mail list logo
