Andrew - Supernews wrote:
On 2006-04-10, Alban Hertroys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Notice the "INSERT" there. For a restore, you'd expect it to be "COPY",
_unless_ you used the -d option to pg_dump (this is a common mistake to
make, given that all the other utilities use -d to specify the databas
On 2006-04-10, Alban Hertroys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alban Hertroys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>postgres 15092 0.0 0.3 43692 12924 ? D14:11 0:00 postgres:
>>>postgres vh3_live [local] INSERT
>>
>> This process is not blocked on a lock: it's waiting fo
Alban Hertroys wrote:
> > If your sysadmin wants to use 7.4.7 rather than 7.4., he
> > needs swift application of a cluestick. I'll grant that there
> > might be application-compatibility reasons to stay on 7.4.*, but
> > not to avoid being up to date in that release series. See
> > http://develo
Tom Lane wrote:
Alban Hertroys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
postgres 15092 0.0 0.3 43692 12924 ? D14:11 0:00 postgres:
postgres vh3_live [local] INSERT
This process is not blocked on a lock: it's waiting for disk I/O.
Thoughts that come to mind include (1) it's going fine and y
Alban Hertroys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> postgres 15092 0.0 0.3 43692 12924 ? D14:11 0:00 postgres:
> postgres vh3_live [local] INSERT
This process is not blocked on a lock: it's waiting for disk I/O.
Thoughts that come to mind include (1) it's going fine and you're not
patient
