On 30 November 2015 at 17:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 04:51:15PM +0000, Benedikt Grundmann wrote:
> > Are you able to compile from 9.4 git head and test that? It seems
> > dumping inheriting constraints from parents has not worked properly
> for
On 3 October 2016 at 14:12, Tom Lane wrote:
> Benedikt Grundmann writes:
> > I just tried this again. This time from 9.2.17 to 9.5.4 and pg_upgrade
> > chokes with this:
> >
> > [root@igm-dbc-001 upgrade-logs]# tail pg_upgrade_dump_16416.log
> > pg_restore:
On 3 October 2016 at 15:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Benedikt Grundmann writes:
> > On 3 October 2016 at 14:12, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> You're going to need to manually drop that operator from the source
> >> database, as "=>" isn't a legal operator nam
On 3 October 2016 at 15:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> Benedikt Grundmann writes:
> > And it looks like now I'm back to the error that stopped me last time:
> > pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error from TOC entry 8425; 2606 416548282
> CHECK
> > CONSTRAINT seqno_not_null
On 3 October 2016 at 21:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Benedikt Grundmann writes:
> > proddb_testing=# SELECT
> > conname,convalidated,conislocal,coninhcount,connoinherit
> > proddb_testing-# FROM pg_constraint WHERE conrelid =
> > 'js_activity_20110101'::reg
On 4 October 2016 at 08:17, Benedikt Grundmann
wrote:
>
> On 3 October 2016 at 21:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Benedikt Grundmann writes:
>> > proddb_testing=# SELECT
>> > conname,convalidated,conislocal,coninhcount,connoinherit
>> > proddb_t
On 4 October 2016 at 09:28, Benedikt Grundmann
wrote:
>
>
> On 4 October 2016 at 08:17, Benedikt Grundmann
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 3 October 2016 at 21:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Benedikt Grundmann writes:
>>> > proddb_testing=# SE
Hello all,
I have a quick question. I feel like somewhere in section 23.1.6 there
should be the answer but I couldn't find it yet. Namely how can I query
the database for total number of tuples inserted, updated, or deleted since
the last ANALYZE? pg_stat_user_tables.n_tup_{ins,upd,del,hot_upd}
On 21 November 2016 at 14:57, Guillaume Lelarge
wrote:
> 2016-11-21 14:44 GMT+01:00 Benedikt Grundmann :
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have a quick question. I feel like somewhere in section 23.1.6 there
>> should be the answer but I couldn't find it yet. Namely
I got this error trying to upgrade one of our database clusters (happily in
testing) from 9.2 to 9.4:
Old and new cluster install users have different values for pg_authid.oid
Important background here is that we used to run the database as the
postgres unix user, but recently we had changed it t
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:12:25AM +0000, Benedikt Grundmann wrote:
> > I got this error trying to upgrade one of our database clusters (happily
> in
> > testing) from 9.2 to 9.4:
> >
> > Old and new cluste
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:04:49AM +0000, Benedikt Grundmann wrote:
> > You can see the 9.5 requirements in the pg_upgrade function
> > check_is_install_user(). You might as well just honor what that
> >
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 09:38:54AM +0000, Benedikt Grundmann wrote:
> > That worked (I also swapped the password columns so that I don't have to
> change
> > pgpass entries). But I then ran into a different problem
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Adrian Klaver
wrote:
> On 11/27/2015 06:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Adrian Klaver writes:
> >> On 11/27/2015 08:15 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> My guess is you are sharing the constraint name "seqno_not_null" with
> >>> multiple tables. I think you are going to
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 08:08:50AM +0000, Benedikt Grundmann wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Adrian Klaver <
> adrian.kla...@aklaver.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > On 11/27
s we
don't use the binary protocol.
Thanks,
Bene
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Benedikt Grundmann <
bgrundm...@janestreet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Benedikt Grundmann writes:
> >> What is the official guide line?
> >
Hello,
Is there a way to construct write an expression that constructs a record
with with named columns. Specificially without the need for a
corresponding named type.
That is
postgres=# select row(1, 2, 3);
row
-
(1,2,3)
(1 row)
Creates a unnamed record type. And indeed it is for
On 21 September 2012 07:50, Alban Hertroys wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2012, at 20:36, Benedikt Grundmann wrote:
>
> > So named anonymous records / row types seem to be strangely second
> class. Can somebody clarify the restrictions and rationale or even better
> show a way to do the e
Hello,
We a little while ago upgraded our databases from 8.4 to 9.1. We
upgraded using pg_upgrade but didn't do anything special for
extensions (other than that the server had the contrib rpm installed).
Everything works just fine but recently we noticed that a lot of the
functions from hstore are
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Benedikt Grundmann writes:
>> What is the official guide line?
>
> You could try (1) run the 9.0 version of the hstore install script
> and then (2) do the CREATE EXTENSION FROM UNPACKAGED bit. I'd
> strongly recommend
20 matches
Mail list logo
