slony1_funcs.2.2.4.so files in lib directory which is how it should be
> since i have upgraded it to 2.2.4
>
>
> Any suggestions?
>
>
> Thanks
> Avi
>
>
--
Jan Wieck
Senior Postgres Architect
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> The only thing I can imagine would be that there is another slony cluster
> (or
> remnants of it) hanging around in the 9.4 installation, possibly in
> another database.
>
>
That does reproduce the problem. I ran the new
ral@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
--
Jan Wieck
Senior Postgres Architect
http://pgblog.wi3ck.info
On 9/7/2007 11:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane =EDrta:
Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
At the end of the day, the behaviour is the same, isn't it?
No, there's a difference in terms of the priority for pushing this
column out to to
On 06/24/13 10:24, Rebecca Clarke wrote:
> I could be wrong, but shouldn't the owner of .pgpass be postgres?
The owner of ~/.pgpass is whoever owns ~ (the home directory of that user).
And ~/.pgpass must have permissions 0600 in order for libpq to actually
use it.
Jan
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24,
On 2/12/2008 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Nathan Wilhelmi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hello - Trying to track down a lock contention problem, I have a process
that does a series of select / insert operations. At some point the
process grabs a series of RowExclusiveLock(s) and has the obvious effect
On 4/5/2008 7:47 AM, Glyn Astill wrote:
Hi chaps,
I know there's been a bit of "activity" on this listrecently - but does anyone
know where I should start looking to resolvethe below?
Yes, a "SET DROP TABLE" is mandatory prior to dropping the table itself.
This is because up to version 1.2.x
ghout the Slony documentation anyway).
Jan
Thanks
- Original Message ----
From: Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Glyn Astill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Saturday, 5 April, 2008 3:00:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Slony1-general] ERROR: XX0
not one I agree with and I don't want a
Google search years from now to tie my name to that viewpoint.
Who (in their right mind) would ever think of anything but BSD in a
server role?
Jan
--
Jan Wieck
Senior Software Engineer
http://slony.info
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
getting in the way then cancelling them is
still harmful, it's just not postgres' fault.
Slony (even the very old 1.2) does not cancel anything explicitly.
Jan
--
Jan Wieck
Senior Software Engineer
http://slony.info
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org
hould be to issue
STORE PATH commands with the new IP/hostname to the Slony replica(s).
Regards,
Jan
--
Jan Wieck
Senior Software Engineer
http://slony.info
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mai
ractical purposes a small subset of functionality through
some gateway service would probably be a better approach.
Note that I am not an Arduino user/developer. I'm more familiar with the
Microchip PICs.
73 de WI3CK
--
Jan Wieck
Senior Software Engineer
http://slony.info
--
Sent via pgsql
message bus or queue.
The bus/queue receiver will then push the data into the database or
whatever downstream system.
Jan
--
Jan Wieck
Senior Software Engineer
http://slony.info
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
secure IP connections, directly
connect to a database, that is hosted on a publicly accessible VPS?
Maybe it is just me, but to me that design has DISASTER written in bold,
red, 120pt font all over it.
Good luck with that,
Jan
--
Jan Wieck
Senior Software Engineer
http://slony.info
--
Sent via
To whom it may concern,
this is to inform the PostgreSQL community of my retirement from my
PostgreSQL core team position.
Over the past years I have not been able to dedicate as much time to
PostgreSQL as everyone would have liked. The main reason for that was
that I was swamped with other work
On 2/6/2005 4:31 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
No, Peter.
Posting a vulnerability on a public mailing list "before" there is a known fix
for it means that you put everyone who has that vulnerability into jeopardy.
Vulnerabilities are a special breed
On 3/20/2005 10:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Stanislaw Tristan wrote:
It's a possible to compress traffic between server and client while server
returns query result?
It's a very actually for dial-up users.
What is solution?
No, unless SSL compresses automatically.
You can use ssh port forwarding w
On 3/23/2005 11:22 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
David Gagnon wrote:
Hi all,
I just created a new db wich userX is owner. I log via pgAdminIII
with the same user but I can't update the pg_class.
You are a datdba but not a superuser :). You have to be a super user
to update pg_class.
and not only a
On 4/22/2005 2:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Sven Willenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
We have a replication set up between 2 servers using Slony; both are
runnind PostgreSQL 8.0.1. The issue is that when updates/inserts are
made to a replicated table, the replication does not occur; apparently
this i
On 5/20/2005 2:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
numeric_power can in theory deliver an exact answer when the exponent is
a positive integer. Division can deliver an exact answer in some cases
too --- but the spec doesn't say it must do so when possible. So I
would say that there is no spec requirement f
On 6/20/2005 1:23 PM, Lee Harr wrote:
Some of the data required by the check function
is being restored after the data being checked
by the function and so it all fails the constraint.
Are you saying that the check function perform queries against other
data? That might not be a good idea --
Added pgsql-hackers
Added Bruce Momjian
On 6/23/2005 12:19 PM, Michael Fuhr wrote:
The question I have is how exactly you manage to get the trigger fired
when restoring the dump. By default, the dump created by pg_dump will
create the table, fill in the data and create the trigger(s) only afte
On 7/28/2005 2:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Phil Endecott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
For some time I had been trying to work out why every connection to my
database resulted in several megabytes of data being written to the
disk, however trivial the query. I think I've found the culprit:
global/p
On 7/28/2005 2:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 7/28/2005 2:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, there's the problem --- the stats subsystem is designed in a way
that makes it rewrite its entire stats collection on every update.
That's clearly not going
On 8/9/2005 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I've executed a "select pg_stat_reset();" as superuser, and all went
away except the offending row...
That only resets the I/O counts (and only for one database), not the
backend activity info.
This reminds me I'v
On 8/4/2005 10:28 PM, Richard Sydney-Smith wrote:
I have asked my internet host to include postgresql as part of their
service but it seems that there are issues in getting it to work with
"cpanel" which is their support service for their clients. Is their a
reason why Postgresql is harder to h
On 9/7/2005 10:45 PM, Leonid Safronie wrote:
Hi, ppl
Is there any way to do SELECTs with different priorities?
Once a month I need to do some complex reports on table with over 7
billion rows, which implies several nested SELECTS and grouping (query
runs over 20 minutes on P4/2.4GHz). Concurre
On 9/22/2005 3:54 PM, Todd Eddy wrote:
I know this gets asked all the time, but I'm having issues with
replication. I got Slony setup between two computers and that does
replication of transactions. But we have a table that because of how
it works new sequences are added on a somewhat reg
On 9/27/2005 12:20 AM, George Essig wrote:
On 9/26/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
We have a database with about 30 tables and some RI. The RI constraints,
however, were not named upon creation of the database 2-3 years ago and
now when we get an error it contains for the constr
On 9/27/2005 3:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 9/27/2005 12:20 AM, George Essig wrote:
We have a database with about 30 tables and some RI. The RI constraints,
however, were not named upon creation of the database 2-3 years ago and
now when we get an er
On 9/28/2005 5:44 AM, Wijnand Wiersma wrote:
Hi list,
I am currently trying to give normal users some read access to some
tables in the database. I also need to give update access to one
column of one table.
I have the table contact, the user should not be able to read or
update anything in it
On 10/6/2005 4:37 AM, Tzvetan Tzankov wrote:
They have collation and multiple characterset per table and etc. which
actually is from 4.1 (not new in 5.0), and postgresql have only one
collation per database cluster :-(
Otherwise I think their features are all there, but cannot be used
togather
On 10/8/2005 4:34 AM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
Bruce Momjian schrieb:
Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.
http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400
InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused.
My guess: a fork in the future.
This whole GPL forking thing is still the same as i
On 10/8/2005 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need
to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick.
What about the patents InnoDB might hold? It would be easier to enforce
a patent based on the fact that
On 10/10/2005 1:32 PM, Dann Corbit wrote:
From:
http://www.filmsite.org/whof4.html
Valiant: Come on. Nobody's gonna drive this lousy freeway when they can take
the Red Car for a nickel.
Doom: Oh, they'll drive. They'll have to. You see, I bought the Red Car so I
could dismantle it.
I don't t
On 10/3/2005 5:38 PM, Chris St Denis wrote:
Can anyone suggest good forums software to use with postgresql? I want to
integrate the forums users into my website's user base with a view.
phpBB2 ... works just fine including upgrade procedures.
Jan
I know of FudForums but it doesn't work w
On 10/11/2005 6:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Of course one flip-side to all this is that if Oracle does attack us it
actually lends credibility; it means they see PostgreSQL as a threat. At
this point that could do more good for us than harm, depending on how
exactly the atta
On 10/12/2005 6:18 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Jussi Mikkola wrote:
Hi,
Well, if the PostgreSQL developers would be hired away from the project with
big money, would that not mean, that the project would be a good path to earn
a lot of money. So, new talented developers
On 10/13/2005 2:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So basically, the problem is that any fix for case folding would touch a
fair bit of code and possibly cause other problems. However, I haven't
seen anyone worry about performance issues in such a fix, just that i
On 10/15/2005 6:22 AM, Thomas Beutin wrote:
Maybe they lost the development of the know how for the only transaction
safe table type of the current mysql releases, but they still "own" the
former Adabas/MaxDB/SAP-DB code with transaction safe tables. Probably
they force the "union" of mysql an
On 10/16/2005 5:25 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Chris Travers wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
They do not "own" MaxDB. They license it, just like Innodb.
Damn, do they ever have alot of "loose ends" ... what part, exactly,
constitutes "MySQL" vs third party add ons?
On 10/16/2005 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
Actually, perhaps an even more restricted version would be better.
Lowercase quoted identifiers only if they are all uppercase. So then:
No, I think the original proposal was better. This one doesn't fix
things for the lu
On 10/17/2005 10:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What is bad about leaving pg_catalog all lower case and expect everyone
to query the catalog quoted?
The fact that it will break every nontrivial client currently in
existence. Those quotes aren't t
On 10/19/2005 3:46 PM, Dann Corbit wrote:
Would you want varchar(30) 'Dann Corbit' to compare equal to bpchar(30)
'Dann Corbit'?
I would.
wieck=# select 'Jan'::varchar(20) = 'Jan'::char(20);
?column?
--
t
(1 row)
wieck=# select 'Jan'::char(20) = 'Jan'::varchar(20);
?column?
-
On 10/20/2005 2:17 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
(I can't believe anyone really wants varchar to be space padded. Space padding
always seemed like a legacy feature for databases with fixed record length
data types. Why would anyone want a string data type that can't represent all
strings?)
They must h
On 10/20/2005 6:10 AM, Alban Hertroys wrote:
Michael Glaesemann wrote:
if (OLD.value IS NOT NULL and NEW.value IS NOT NULL and OLD.value <>
NEW.value) or OLD.value IS NULL or NEW.value IS NULL
But that's untested and I have a hard time thinking in three-value logic.
For completeness sake;
On 10/31/2005 1:14 PM, Chris Browne wrote:
The fact that it appears "a joke" to people wanting to deploy big
databases doesn't prevent it from taking a painful bite out of, oh,
say, certain vendors that forgot to own their own transactional
storage engine...
It's not a joke. It fits exactly th
On 11/1/2005 8:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 10/31/2005 1:14 PM, Chris Browne wrote:
The fact that it appears "a joke" to people wanting to deploy big
databases doesn't prevent it from taking a painful bite out of, oh,
say, certain vendo
On 10/31/2005 11:58 AM, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
At 08:24 AM 10/30/2005 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> >http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/plpgsql-control-structure
s.html#PLPGSQL-ERROR-TRAPPING
>
> Erm, doesn't it have the same race conditions?
No, don't believe it does. Have you found
On 2/11/2007 1:02 PM, Benjamin Arai wrote:
Hi Magnus,
Think this can be avoided as long the the queries executed on the lower
priority process never lock anything important. In my case, I would
alway be doing inserts with the lower priority process, so inversion
should never occur. On the o
acquire another, the higher the risk
someone else grabs that and tries visa versa. So if there is a risk of
deadlocks due to the access pattern of your application, then slowing
down the updating processes will increase the risk of it to happen.
Jan
Benjamin
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 2/11/2007 1:
connection pools
with pgpool, one for reading having many physical connections, each
shared for just a few clients, another having few physical connections
shared by all writers. That way you will have a limited number of
writers active at the same time.
Jan
Benjamin
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 2/16
On 2/16/2007 1:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
extra points, use *only one* test case. Perhaps this paper can be
described as "comparing an F-15 to a 747 on the basis of required
runway length".
Oh, this one wasn't about raw speed of trivial single table statements
like all the others?
Jan
--
#===
On 2/20/2007 3:51 PM, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
On 2/21/07, Guido Neitzer wrote:
It would be more or less the same, if you compare copy against insert
performance on PostgreSQL and state that insert should be as fast as
copy without saying why.
Btw: these guys claim to be database consultants.
On 10/15/2004 4:20 AM, Mark Gibson wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 05:25:58PM +0100, Mark Gibson wrote:
I had to remove Slony's schema manually as I was having problems
with it. I was in the process of removing all Slony related stuff,
and all my slave tables when this problem
On 10/18/2004 12:49 AM, Ed L. wrote:
I *think* I'm seeing "vacuum analyze" queries launched automatically on an
8.0.0beta3 (unless I have a rogue autovac running that I haven't spotted).
Is this something new in 8.0 and to be expected?
Are you running Slony by any chance?
Jan
--
#===
On 10/19/2004 7:11 AM, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
On 18 Oct 2004 at 17:38, Eric wrote:
It is possible to mainteners of this list to keep this list from
"/$?%/$?/? windows problems? I don't care about windows. The worst
thing never made was porting an excellent product like PostgreSQL to a
poor serv
On 10/21/2004 10:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
MySQL has information about several storage engines. MEMORY to handle
temporary tables, InnoDB to handle transactions and which also can split
its table data over several files/partitions. Splitting of storage is
something which according to th
Sorry folks,
the Slony-I team has produced a great product, but the project
management (that's mostly me here) sucks big time!
Shortly after giving Chris Browne green light for the 1.0.4 announcement
we found a way to guard against bug #896. That being a really bad one I
decided to stop the 1.0
lias is using Slony-I in production, Andrew
Sullivan will not let me do whatever I want if there's a severe problem
nobody else can fix.
So don't worry, I'll be around.
Jan
Ed
On Friday October 22 2004 7:26, Jan Wieck wrote:
Sorry folks,
the Slony-I team has produced a great product,
On 10/21/2004 3:40 PM, John Wells wrote:
Guys,
My boss has been keeping himself busy reading MySQL marketing pubs,
and came at me with a few questions this morning regarding PostgreSQL
features (we're currently moving to PostgreSQL).
While I don't think either are really that important for our
situ
On 10/25/2004 11:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
Harrison Fisk from MySQL claims in this thread:
http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?35,3981,4245#msg-4245
That there are no major differences between InnoDB and MVCC concurrency.
Is this true?
From a functional point of view, the two appear to do
On 10/25/2004 2:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
Why is it that PostgreSQL chooses to have features like replication,
fulltext indexing and GIS maintained by others outside of the sourcetree?
Because those are very diverse features. Replication especially, which
is a bunch of different techni
On 10/25/2004 2:42 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:15:33PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 10/25/2004 11:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Is this true?
From a functional point of view, the two appear to do the same thing.
Well, except for one difference. InnoDB will allow
On 10/25/2004 2:56 PM, Naeem Bari wrote:
Hi,
I am using postgres 7.4.5 on Redhat Enterprise Linux 3.
My background is really on Oracle, and I am porting a largish database
over to postgres.
Here is my problem:
On oracle, I had a table with an "on update or delete" trigger that
copied the cu
On 10/25/2004 3:33 PM, Franco Bruno Borghesi wrote:
I've made a test case, and setting the trigger BEFORE DELETE doesn't
delete the rows from the table (but it does execute the trigger, and it
does insert the rows in the audit table), I dont' know why :(.
Because the internal variable for NEW is in
On 10/25/2004 3:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
"Naeem Bari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.func_job_status_upd()
RETURNS trigger AS
'
begin
insert into x_job_status values ( OLD.job_id, OLD.job_status_type_id,
OLD.status_date, OLD.notes, OLD.edit_person_id, OLD.edit_date)
On 10/25/2004 3:53 PM, Naeem Bari wrote:
I understand. Makes sense. Is there anyway for my trigger function to
"know" that it is being called on a delete or on an update? Because I do
need to "return new" on update... and I really don't want to write 2
different functions, one for update and one fo
On 10/30/2004 3:39 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Replication is one subsystem not included in source tree. But PostgreSQL
has other subsystems that are included such as plugins for procedural
languages. So isn't the same risks involved with them?
No, not r
On 11/7/2004 8:06 PM, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
On Sunday, in article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Mike Cox" wrote:
Also, he pointed out that for those who want to get the postgresql groups
when their usenet sever doesn't carry them, the solution would be to point
their newsreade
On 11/15/2004 5:05 PM, ON.KG wrote:
Hi!
Description:
VMware 4.0
Main host is WinXP Pro (on FAT32)
and Guest Host is WinXP Pro (on NTFS)
I hope you're running the guest with fully preallocated virtual disks.
Any FAT inconsistency caused by a system crash could destroy your entire
guest otherwise.
On 11/16/2004 4:52 AM, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
On Nov 16, 2004, at 6:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Dienstag, 16. November 2004 10:01 schrieb Joolz:
Michael Glaesemann zei:
OIDS are a system level implementation. They are no longer required
(you can make tables without OIDS) and they may go aw
On 11/16/2004 6:32 AM, Holger Klawitter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A little bit OT, but:
is there a way of removing duplicate rows in a table without OIDs?
There is still the CTID.
Jan
Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards
Holger Klawitter
- --
lists klawit
On 11/23/2004 4:46 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.
This is the attitude I've seen from many of the pro-usenet people. If I
don't get it my way I will bash your project and try to do harm.
I am too one of those who have left usenet many years ago. Partly
because of people
On 11/23/2004 4:37 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The list has been deluged with
countless angry process oriented messages filled with vitriol and
devoid of any content regarding the purpose of this forum, we ha
On 11/29/2004 11:53 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
Stay out of my email.
This ia a PostgreSQL related topic discussed on PostgreSQL mailing lists
and you react like this to a mail from a PostgreSQL CORE team member?
Rethink your attitude.
Jan
At 11:50 PM 11/29/2004, you wrote:
On 11/23/2004 4:46 PM
On 11/30/2004 2:37 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't care WHO you are. I've already asked you
once to stay out of my email. Further emails from you will be reported to
both Yahoo and Comcast as harassment.
I'm not on your list.
_I_ am posting to a USENet discussion
On 11/30/2004 5:55 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
Marc G. Fournier From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Harris) writes:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
"If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch
to using Usenet fro
On 11/30/2004 5:27 PM, Mike Cox wrote:
Ultimately, the RFD is about providing a place for _Usenet_ PostgreSQL users
who have been neglected for quite some time. With the ease of posting to
the big 8 group, and the very large propegation, I can see why the
comp.databases.postgresql group will be ve
On 11/30/2004 11:46 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 11/30/2004 2:37 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't care WHO you are. I've already asked you
once to stay out of my email. Further emails from you will be reported to
On 12/1/2004 1:25 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
Jan, Gary may be blunt at times, but try to understand things from his
perspective. He is posting to Usenet. He expects his replies to appear on
Usenet. You are accustomed to your way of writing and reading messages. He
is accustomed to his way. Perhaps
On 12/2/2004 4:39 AM, ON.KG wrote:
Hi All!
How could I select another database without new connection?
For example, in PHP+MySQL we have mysql_select_db('database_name');
You can't. An existing session cannot change the database connected to.
Jan
--
#
On 12/3/2004 1:59 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Net Virtual Mailing Lists wrote:
My only suggestion:
I don't care what you do with the newsgroups, just don't screw with the
mailing lists. If the mailing lists go away, I will be *EXTREMELY*
disappointed!
this RFD in no way affects
On 12/3/2004 3:32 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official
pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuff is not gated in either
direction?
Yes.
If that's the case, there shoul
On 12/3/2004 4:12 PM, Mike Cox wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
So how exactly do you think that big number of non-developer advanced
PostgreSQL users will populate the comp.* groups? I don't see them there
right now, and without them the comp.* groups are the wrong groups
because you will not get an
On 12/5/2004 12:48 PM, Jake Stride wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 16:55:33 +,
Jake Stride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there anyway to declare a constant that you can then use within a
postgresql 'session', i am connecting from a PHP based application and
trying to
On 12/6/2004 1:33 AM, Derek Fountain wrote:
On Monday 06 December 2004 12:31, you wrote:
Derek Fountain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If another SQL Injection vulnerability turns up (which it might, given
> the state of the website code),
You will never see another SQL injection vulnerability if yo
On 12/6/2004 6:10 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Actually, hard disk encryption is useful for one thing: so if somebody
kills the power and takes the hard disk/computer, the data is safe.
While it's running it's vulnerable though...
Where do you plan to kee
On 2/2/2005 11:57 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Pgpool 2.5b2 supports "master slave mode" which can cope with
master/slave replication softwares such as Slony-I. In this mode
pgpool sends non SELECT queries to master only. SELECTs are load
balanced by pgpool.
Other features of 2.5b2
On 2/4/2005 5:56 AM, Mike Nolan wrote:
If you have so much update load that one server cannot accomodate that
load, then you should wonder why you'd expect that causing every one
of these updates to be applied to (say) 3 servers would "diminish"
this burden.
The update/query load isn't the real iss
On 1/30/2005 10:18 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
I think it is in good taste that when you find a
bug/vulnerability/etc first you contact the author (in this case:
core), leave them some time to fix the problem and then go on
announcing it to the
world.
In this case, core is not
On 12/2/2005 2:02 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
so the way to do it is create a trigger that record in a table the
number of rows...
Neither, because now you have to update one single row in that new
table, which causes a row exclusive lock. That is worse than an
exclusive lock on the original ta
On 12/3/2005 1:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone specify from his/her experience what would be the benefits of using postgresql 8.04 versus 8.03 in terms of reliability and/or performance.
Unless forced because there is no other way to fix a bug, we do not
change any functionalit
On 12/4/2005 7:55 PM, vishal saberwal wrote:
hi,
We are storing the Icons/IMages in the database as Large Objects using
lo_import functions.
(1) what would be the return type if i want to return a large object (
XYZ.gif) to the remote client (GUI) using stored procedure.
Can anyone give an exa
On 12/4/2005 9:24 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
(1) what would be the return type if i want to return a large object (
XYZ.gif) to the remote client (GUI) using stored procedure.
Can anyone give an example please?
Are there any size limitations i need to consider when returning Large
Object using
On 12/4/2005 11:45 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Well as I said it depends on the size of the data. Are we talking 100
meg vector images? Then large objects. Are we talking thumbnails that
are 32k then bytea.
I'd say that anything up to a megabyte or so can easily live in bytea.
Beyond that it
On 12/8/2005 9:12 PM, Luca Pireddu wrote:
I wrote a trigger function with the intent of preventing the deletion of a
parent record when a referencing record would not allow it. However, the
result is that the referencing record stays, but the referenced one is gone,
so that my foreign key con
On 4/13/2006 6:19 AM, John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
My tables are defined "WITHOUT OID" - does that make a difference?
That's good so far.
The other thing that is eating OID's are temporary objects. I personally
consider the implementation of temp tables broken for precisely that
matter. If y
On 6/7/2006 4:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At the same time, it strikes me that at least the userlock stuff, and
> maybe dbmirror as well, are candidates for pgfoundry rather than
> contrib/
We'd already agreed to move dbmirror to pgf
On 6/18/2006 11:41 PM, Wes wrote:
Is there a way to add a foreign key constraint without having to wait for it
to check the consistency of all existing records? If a database is being
reloaded (pg_dumpall then load), it really shouldn't be necessary to check
the referential integrity - or at le
1 - 100 of 289 matches
Mail list logo
