[HACKERS] Recent initdb error

2003-01-20 Thread Rod Taylor
setting privileges on built-in objects... ok creating information schema... sed: 1: "s/^[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.\([0 ...": undefined label 'L;s/.*//;q;: L;s/.*\(\)$/\1/' ok vacuuming database template1... ok Seems to have appeared with the changes for the SQL_FEATURES table. The below works:

Re: [HACKERS] Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4?

2003-01-20 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > PS: I'm not taking a position on Justin's suggestion that there should > be a 7.2.4. Marc and Bruce would be the ones who have to do the work, > so they get to make the decision... I have no problems creating one ... Bruce? ---(end

[HACKERS] pg_dump ordering

2003-01-20 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Hey Peter, I remember a while back you were saying you were working on pg_dump object ordering? What happened with that? Did you need some help with it? I ask because my 7.2 to 7.3 upgrade is making me cry and I want to prevent future pain... Chris ---(end of broadcas

[HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-20 Thread Jan Wieck
Hi, I just submitted the patches for the native Win32 port of v7.2.1 on the patches mailing list. If you are not subscribed to the patches list you can download them from http://www.janwieck.net/win32_port Jan -- #==# # It's

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness

2003-01-20 Thread Tom Lane
Didier Moens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I just formally tested on PostgreSQL 7.2.2 (logs sent to Dave), and the > results are perfectly inline with those from 7.2.3 : a massive slowdown > when upgrading from pgadminII 1.4.2 to 1.4.12. I thought the complaint involved PG 7.3? There is no sche

[HACKERS] Grant options

2003-01-20 Thread Peter Eisentraut
I am implementing the grant option feature which enables an object owner to allows others to re-grant privileges. For REVOKE you can specify CASCADE and privileges granted in this manner are revoked recursively. Currently, I have made it so that you can only give grant options to users, not group

Re: [HACKERS] Survey results from the PostgreSQL portal page

2003-01-20 Thread Emmanuel Charpentier
Gavin Sherry wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: I wonder why people ask for better documentation. I think the documentation is really good. Ever read Oracle stuff? *ugh*. Ever read MySQL docs - *hack*!! The documentation definately needs work -- particularly client

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness

2003-01-20 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: Hannu Krosing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 January 2003 18:05 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Tom Lane; PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List; Didier Moens > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness > > > > I've been looking at his for some time now (couple of

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness

2003-01-20 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 January 2003 16:08 > To: Dave Page > Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List; Didier Moens > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness > > > "Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Thing is Tom, this issue

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness

2003-01-20 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 15:47, Dave Page wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 20 January 2003 15:28 > > To: Dave Page > > Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List; Didier Moens > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness > > > > > > "Dave P

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness

2003-01-20 Thread Tom Lane
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thing is Tom, this issue can be reproduced *every* time, without fail. And have you vacuumed or analyzed yet? Or possibly you are short an index or two (you really need indexes on both the referencing and referenced columns). > I've been looking at his f

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness

2003-01-20 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 January 2003 15:28 > To: Dave Page > Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List; Didier Moens > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness > > > "Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > A pgAdmin user has notice

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness

2003-01-20 Thread Tom Lane
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A pgAdmin user has noticed that Foreign Keys take significantly longer > to create when migrating a database in pgAdmin in v1.4.12 than in > v1.4.2. The only reason ADD FOREIGN KEY would take a long time is if (a) it has to wait awhile to get exclusive loc

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-20 Thread Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
[no cc:s please] On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 10:31, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > >>>"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" said: > > On Thursday 16 January 2003 11:59, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrot > e: > > > On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 17:42, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > > > > We are also looking at hardware solutio

[HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness

2003-01-20 Thread Dave Page
Hi all, A pgAdmin user has noticed that Foreign Keys take significantly longer to create when migrating a database in pgAdmin in v1.4.12 than in v1.4.2. The only difference in the migration code between these releases, is that pgAdmin now qualifies tables names with the schema name. The following

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-20 Thread Daniel Kalchev
>>>"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" said: > On Thursday 16 January 2003 11:59, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrot e: > > On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 17:42, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > > > We are also looking at hardware solutions, multi-CPU PCs with tons (24GB ) > > > of memory. I know that memory