Hi list,
I am working with postgres 8.0.3 on a HP Pro Liant Xeon box under SuSE
Linux 9.1
When dumping a database, I got the error
pg_dump: SQL command to dump the contents of table "bearbeitungsschritt"
failed: PQendcopy() failed.
pg_dump: Error message from server: ERROR: missing chunk nu
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:02:28AM +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> On 7/18/05, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
> > However, maybe padding for alignment is a waste on the disk - disks being
> > so much slower than CPUs (not sure about that once the data is in memory ).
> > Maybe there should be an option to reo
resending it because i used the wrong mail address. sorry!
Am Montag, 18. Juli 2005 18:18 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I don't see why.
> >
> > Except that before I think the order would have looked like (for 1 row)
> >
I'm running postgresql 8.0 under WindowsXP for a development box (the
production server isn't up yet, and will be linux, so I don't know that
the problem will travel)...
Using a PHP connection to it for a simple web app, if I leave the app
alone for a bit (about 20 seconds I'd say) and do some
Hi,
when have a 8.0.3 database running on a XEON machine. We want to replace
it with an Opteron where postgresql is to be compiled with 64bit. Do we
need a dump/restore or can we just start the db with the new compilation?
Regards,
Dirk
---(end of broadcast)
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:02:28AM +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> Out of curiosity, do I understand right that if I create table
>
> CREATE TABLE sample1 (
> a boolean,
> b int,
> c boolean
> );
>
> ...it will take more storage than:
>
> CREATE TABLE sample2 (
> b int,
> a bo
Hi!
I've already asked this question a month ago -
it remains unanswered.
Dare to repeat since this issue is rather important for me.
So.
When I invoke
select 1 where 5 in (null)
everything is Ok,
though when I try
select 1 where 5 in (select null)
I get
ERROR: failed to find conversion f
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> I don't think you could create indexes on text fields... there are
> other type of indexes for that... tsearch2 for example
You can index text fields, but you can't insert values bigger then
BLOCKSIZE/3 when you have an index on that column.
--
/Den
Ilja Golshtein wrote:
When I invoke
select 1 where 5 in (null)
everything is Ok,
though when I try
select 1 where 5 in (select null)
I get
ERROR: failed to find conversion function from "unknown" to integer.
Is it desired behavior or subject to change
in future versions of PG?
Well,
>Well, it would obviously be better if PG could figure out it was safe,
>but I'm not sure there's a general case where it is. You can see it's OK
>because you know there's only one row in your SELECT result-set.
I think, it's OK because NULL can be compared with anything
with predictable resul
Rob Brenart wrote:
I'm running postgresql 8.0 under WindowsXP for a development box (the
production server isn't up yet, and will be linux, so I don't know that
the problem will travel)...
Using a PHP connection to it for a simple web app, if I leave the app
alone for a bit (about 20 seconds
Janning Vygen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On more related question:
> I updated pg_trigger and pg_constraint and changed all my FK:
> UPDATE pg_trigger
> SET
> tgdeferrable = true,
> tginitdeferred = true
> WHERE tgconstrname LIKE 'fk_%'
> ;
> UPDATE pg_constraint
> SET
> condeferrable
We have an issue
with running pg_dump while a database is under reasonably heavy update load.
This is 7.4.5 on Solaris 9/intel.
The observed
behavior was that a pg_dump running with nothing else going on takes a couple of
minutes, but when we are running some system tests that do heavy upd
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dirk_Lutzeb=E4ck?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> when have a 8.0.3 database running on a XEON machine. We want to replace
> it with an Opteron where postgresql is to be compiled with 64bit. Do we
> need a dump/restore or can we just start the db with the new compilation?
I'd bet y
What is everyone's opinion for exclusively using Stored Procedures
for increased security? The scenario I am thinking of means having
one user which is widely accessible (large numbers of staff/user for
example) and only has access to some stored procedures, which where
create with SECURITY
"Ilja Golshtein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, it would obviously be better if PG could figure out it was safe,
>> but I'm not sure there's a general case where it is. You can see it's OK
>> because you know there's only one row in your SELECT result-set.
> I think, it's OK because NULL
Ilja Golshtein wrote:
Well, it would obviously be better if PG could figure out it was safe,
but I'm not sure there's a general case where it is. You can see it's OK
because you know there's only one row in your SELECT result-set.
I think, it's OK because NULL can be compared with anything
Am Montag, 18. Juli 2005 18:18 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I don't see why.
> >
> > Except that before I think the order would have looked like (for 1 row)
> > Originating Action
> > Trigger A on originating table that
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I don't see why.
>
> > Except that before I think the order would have looked like (for 1 row)
> > Originating Action
> > Trigger A on originating table that does update
>
I have been trying to use views to restrict access to a subset of data
as stated :
Using Andrus's example for user B with document in public schema :
REVOKE ALL FROM public.document;
CREATE SCHEMA b AUTHORIZATION b;
CREATE VIEW b.document AS SELECT * FROM public.document WHERE
DocumentType
"David Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The observed behavior was that a pg_dump running with nothing else going
> on takes a couple of minutes, but when we are running some system tests
> that do heavy updates to a selection of application tables, it appears
> that pg_dump blocks until the up
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 05:42, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>
> > I don't think you could create indexes on text fields... there are
> > other type of indexes for that... tsearch2 for example
>
> You can index text fields, but you can't insert values bigger t
Hello!
>>> Well, it would obviously be better if PG could figure out it was safe,
>>> but I'm not sure there's a general case where it is. You can see it's OK
>>> because you know there's only one row in your SELECT result-set.
>
>> I think, it's OK because NULL can be compared with anything
>
Richard Huxton writes:
> [* Actually, I think NULLs are typed in SQL, which means you should be
> able to get type violations. ]
I'm pretty sure the entire construct is illegal per a strict reading of
the SQL spec --- the spec only allows NULL to appear in contexts where a
datatype can be assign
Samuel Thoraval <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have been trying this example not executing the GRANT UPDATE statement
> at first to check that user b doesn't have the right to update. The
> problem is that even though B was not granted the update privilege, it
> worked anyway. In other words, s
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 05:42, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
>> You can index text fields, but you can't insert values bigger then
>> BLOCKSIZE/3 when you have an index on that column.]
> Please note that the size limitation is for btree indexes, the most
> com
Tom Lane a écrit :
Samuel Thoraval <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I have been trying this example not executing the GRANT UPDATE statement
at first to check that user b doesn't have the right to update. The
problem is that even though B was not granted the update privilege, it
w
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 10:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 05:42, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> >> You can index text fields, but you can't insert values bigger then
> >> BLOCKSIZE/3 when you have an index on that column.]
>
> > Please note that
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 10:25, Tom Lane wrote:
>> None of the index types support entries larger than BLOCKSIZE-less-a-bit,
>> so switching to a different index type won't do more than push the
>> problem out by a factor of about 3.
> Are they compressed?
What happened was that I realized that here it was already noon on
Tuesday, and I hadn't made a fool of myself in public yet this week
I blindly took the output from somebody else's query and didn't look at
the pg_locks table myself. Once I was able to look at it with a live
test running, ever
Hi,
I am trying RAMFS solution with Postgres wherein I am pushing the most
heavily used tables in RAM.
I have 32GB RAM on a 64 bit opteron machine. My database size is 40GB. I
think Linux allows max. of 16GB (half of available RAM) to be used directly
to push tables to it.
I am concerned ab
>Richard Huxton writes:
>> [* Actually, I think NULLs are typed in SQL, which means you should be
>> able to get type violations. ]
>
>I'm pretty sure the entire construct is illegal per a strict reading of
>the SQL spec --- the spec only allows NULL to appear in contexts where a
>datatype can be
Hi,
i want to use psql using the --username option. But i do not find an
option to pass the password. I want to use psql in a batch, so i want to
automate it.
Best Regards,
Josef Springer
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our ext
Thanks Tom,
we now stay with 32bit to allow backward compatibilty with XEON which
is needed as a fail-over system.
The question is which gcc cflags are best used with XEON and Opteron to
achieve fail-over compatibility. This is what we used for postgresql
8.0.3:
XEON, RHEL 3.0 AS:
CFLAG
BAT FILE SHOULD CONTAIN
set PGPASSWORD=postgres
"psql.exe" MYDATABASE -U postgres -f mysqlfile.sql
Oisin
- Original Message -
From: "Josef Springer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:26 PM
Subject: [GENERAL] How to pass the password for login in psql
Hi,
i wa
Josef Springer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i want to use psql using the --username option. But i do not find an
> option to pass the password.
There are very good reasons for that.
> I want to use psql in a batch, so i want to automate it.
Consider using a ~/.pgpass file.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:48:16AM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> int, bool, bool 6 bytes, no padding
> bool, int, bool 9 bytes, including 3 bytes padding
> bool, bool, int 8 bytes, including 2 bytes padding
We store bool's in a byte and don't compact? That would be another very
[sorry for resending again. i am not at my usual desktop at the moment and
used the wrong sender address]
Am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2005 15:40 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Janning Vygen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On more related question:
> > I updated pg_trigger and pg_constraint and changed all my FK:
FYI, this is deprecated in favor of a .pgpass file.
See:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/libpq-pgpass.html
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 13:01, Oisin Glynn wrote:
> BAT FILE SHOULD CONTAIN
>
> set PGPASSWORD=postgres
> "psql.exe" MYDATABASE -U postgres -f mysqlfile.sql
>
>
> Oisin
> - O
Hi All
What is the syntax if I want to use the exception clause in a pl/pgsql
function, but am not looking for a particular error. Kind of like a "any
error" type thing.
some thing like:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION func1(p_Param1 int4)
RETURNS int4
AS
$$
DECLARE
v_Var1 int4;
BEGIN
[Sta
On 19.07.2005 20:56, Craig Bryden wrote:
What is the syntax if I want to use the exception clause in a pl/pgsql
function, but am not looking for a particular error. Kind of like a "any
error" type thing.
35.7.5. Trapping Errors
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/plpgsql-control-str
Hi,
I am new to postgres. I hope that ppl out there can give me some help.
I have installed postgres on my system, which runs with Fedora 2 on a
P-IV machine.
I have created a postgres account. I am able to use psql (under
postgres a/c) without any problem.
I have created another postgres
Richard Huxton wrote:
Rob Brenart wrote:
I'm running postgresql 8.0 under WindowsXP for a development box (the
production server isn't up yet, and will be linux, so I don't know
that the problem will travel)...
Using a PHP connection to it for a simple web app, if I leave the app
alone for
"Kelvin T. Leung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, I am unable to run psql using my own OS login a/c. And I get an
> error message:
> psql: error while loading shared libraries: psql: undefined symbol:
> get_progname
This is a version-skew issue: you are trying to use a psql executable
w
44 matches
Mail list logo
