Marty Scholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone seriously looked at how it would impact things to give the
> DBA the option of storing certain indices in RAM instead of on disk?
I'd classify it as an utter waste of time. If the index is being hit
heavily, it will stay cached in RAM anyway
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is what I think happened (this might be a bug, might not): Each
> night I run initdb but I use a special postgresql.conf which is
> optimized for quick data loading. This is copied over the default one
> after the server is started. This contai
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are the zic files something that should be updated for every minor
> release, or only for every major release?
AFAIK they don't change very often.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
I did not modify the format of the zic timezone database files, which
means that for the moment the system will not know about daylight-savings
periods outside the range 1901-2038. Given the way the files are set up,
it's not a simple decision like 'widen to 64 bits'; we have to actually
think abo
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
This has bitten me a couple times. In what version did it change?
My feeling, and I'd like to see what everyone else thinks, is that if
you
do not specify a locale, you get "C."
I think that initdb should default to something, and do the following:
* Have an explic
This has bitten me a couple times. In what version did it change?
My feeling, and I'd like to see what everyone else thinks, is that if you
do not specify a locale, you get "C."
I think that initdb should default to something, and do the following:
* Have an explicit warnign if no locale specified,
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> > When this new behavior was introduced, and I migrated our databases to
>> > the new PgSQL version (dump/restore), the locale of all my databases
>> > were silently changed from C to US_en. This broke one application in a
>> > very subtle way because of slightly
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > When this new behavior was introduced, and I migrated our databases to
> > the new PgSQL version (dump/restore), the locale of all my databases
> > were silently changed from C to US_en. This broke one application in a
> > very subtle way because of slightly di
When this new behavior was introduced, and I migrated our databases to
the new PgSQL version (dump/restore), the locale of all my databases
were silently changed from C to US_en. This broke one application in a
very subtle way because of slightly different sort behavior in the
different locale.
Hello,
I have a much clearer picture of the issue. So, does this mean that
with nested transactions, all statements will execute within a
mini-transaction, which may be executed within a branch of user
defined sub-transactions. Such that:
begin
...
...
begin
...
...
mini-tr
On Wednesday 02 June 2004 02:01 pm, ivan wrote:
>
> where can i set min/max number of process which are waiting for
> connections from clients ?
>
First off, you are on the wrong list. This is more appropriate for the admin
or preformance list.
PostgreSQL forks a proce
> "pgsql" == pgsql <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
pgsql> The have a database of information that is coming in at a
pgsql> high speed regular basis. One bit of information is a
pgsql> value. To get this value they must perform SELECT
pgsql> sum(field) FROM table. Well, this simply
hi
where can i set min/max number of process which are waiting for
connections from clients ?
bye
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
On Monday 31 May 2004 06:38 am, Pierre Emmanuel Gros wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to know if i can add constraint and typed column upon a
> create view sentence.
> something like create view toto (a INTEGER primary key , b VARCHAR) as
> select .
> If it is not possible , what t
Has anyone seriously looked at how it would impact things to give the
DBA the option of storing certain indices in RAM instead of on disk?
Queries (both select and insert/update) against heavily indexed tables
do most of the reads and writes to the index trees and relatively little
reading and
Hi,
I would like to know if i can add constraint and typed column upon a
create view sentence.
something like create view toto (a INTEGER primary key , b VARCHAR) as
select .
If it is not possible , what to have to change in the backend sources to
obtain the result ???
Thank you
Pierre
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
>> parameters in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and
>> uniformity.
> Why is that a good idea?
Paul Ramsey wrote:
Just because it is not new does not mean that it is good.
Sure. I've been caught by it too. Once. :-)
When this new behavior was introduced, and I migrated our databases to
the new PgSQL version (dump/restore), the locale of all my databases
were silently changed from C to US_
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it me or has the default locale of created databases change at some point?
>
> Currently, on Linux, if one does not specify a locale, the locale is taken
> from the system environment and it is not "C."
>
> While I can both sides of a discussion, I
Just because it is not new does not mean that it is good.
When this new behavior was introduced, and I migrated our databases to
the new PgSQL version (dump/restore), the locale of all my databases
were silently changed from C to US_en. This broke one application in a
very subtle way because of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it me or has the default locale of created databases change at some point?
Currently, on Linux, if one does not specify a locale, the locale is taken
from the system environment and it is not "C."
While I can both sides of a discussion, I think that choosing a "locale"
w
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:23:37PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > > If we go with a global CID counter then we don't have to add that step.
> >
> > Seems Alvaro is already using a global counter.
>
> I think I stated already that I'm in fact using i
Is it me or has the default locale of created databases change at some point?
Currently, on Linux, if one does not specify a locale, the locale is taken
from the system environment and it is not "C."
While I can both sides of a discussion, I think that choosing a "locale"
without one being specif
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:23:37PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > If we go with a global CID counter then we don't have to add that step.
>
> Seems Alvaro is already using a global counter.
I think I stated already that I'm in fact using it. Not sure why it
didn't show up in
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:12:31AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> A global CID counter would also simplify other visibility tests. Alvaro
> hasn't said anything about how he's doing visibility checks across
> different subxacts of the same main xact, but without global CID there
> would need to be some
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't understand why a single counter is needed for phantom xids. We
> > keep the cmin/cmax on the tuple already, and our own backend can look up
> > the xmin/xmax that goes with the phantom.
>
> Oh, so you're thinking of an intern
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:54:36PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >Well, the spec doesn't have create permissions per se, but they do have
> >a "usage" right on domains, and they specify that revoking that results
> >in dropping objects:
> >
> > 7) For every abandoned domain descri
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't understand why a single counter is needed for phantom xids. We
> keep the cmin/cmax on the tuple already, and our own backend can look up
> the xmin/xmax that goes with the phantom.
Oh, so you're thinking of an internal table that provides a map
How about pg_dumpall dumps all users as superusers, and then changes
them back to what they're supposed to be at the bottom of the script :)
Leaves you in kind of a dangerous state if the script doesn't complete,
doesn't it?
If your script doesn't complete, it can leave you in all sorts of bad
s
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:05:43 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I remain unalterably opposed to the notion of measuring
> >shared_buffers> in KB, but if you think you can get such a thing in
> >over my objections,
>
> > Are you OK with
Someone else suggested having pg_dump dump all objects without ownership
(so, on restore, they'd all initially be owned by the user running the
script, hopefully a superuser) and then doing ALTER OWNERs and GRANTs at
the bottom.
Actually, this would probably only be reasonable if you fixed the ACLs
Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This may be an unreasonable suggestion, but how about allowing both?
> I've seen several configuration systems do the following:
> shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
> shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers )
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Someone else suggested having pg_dump dump all objects without ownership
>> (so, on restore, they'd all initially be owned by the user running the
>> script, hopefully a superuser) and then doing ALTER OWNERs and GRANTs at
>> the bottom.
> Act
On Wednesday 02 June 2004 20:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This may be an unreasonable suggestion, but how about allowing both?
> > I've seen several configuration systems do the following:
> >
> > shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
> >
On Wednesday 02 June 2004 20:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Any updates/opinions? Should we convert assign hooks to perform actual
> > assignment and custom validation instead of just custom validation? It is
> > clear from README that it is for validation
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:52:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> AFAICS your proposal does not support this. The two cursors' snapshots
> >> will differ only in the recorded current-cid for the outer transaction.
> >> If the subtrans h
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, I it seems postgres --describe-config isn't working. It outputs
> nothing here.
Yeah, same here. I'll take a look --- I may have side-swiped that during
recent hacking in main.c.
regards, tom lane
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I've been trying to think of ways to solve these problems by having a
> >> main xact and all its subxacts share a common CID sequence (ie, a
> >> subxact would have its own xid but would not start CID over at one).
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about pg_dumpall dumps all users as superusers, and then changes
> them back to what they're supposed to be at the bottom of the script :)
Leaves you in kind of a dangerous state if the script doesn't complete,
doesn't it?
Someone else su
Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I remain unalterably opposed to the notion of measuring shared_buffers
>> in KB, but if you think you can get such a thing in over my objections,
> Are you OK with MBs? I am fine with anything.
No, I'm not. shared_buffers should be measured in b
Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any updates/opinions? Should we convert assign hooks to perform actual
> assignment and custom validation instead of just custom validation? It is
> clear from README that it is for validation purposes only..
As it should be. Assign hooks have n
Well, the spec doesn't have create permissions per se, but they do have
a "usage" right on domains, and they specify that revoking that results
in dropping objects:
7) For every abandoned domain descriptor DO, let S1.DN be the
of DO. The following is
effectively e
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've been trying to think of ways to solve these problems by having a
>> main xact and all its subxacts share a common CID sequence (ie, a
>> subxact would have its own xid but would not start CID over at one).
>> If you assume that, th
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The problem here is not with pg_dump; the problem is that dropping
>> privileges doesn't cascade to dropping objects that are dependent on
>> those privileges. AFAICS the SQL spec requires us to be able to do
>> the latter.
> The spec really
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This is exactly the same argument as not being able to overwrite cmin.
>
> > Basically the phantom xid's are a shorthand for saying the tuple was
> > created by xid1 and deleted by xid2, both part of the same main
On 5/31/2004 9:45 PM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Hi,
I had this question posed to me on IRC and I didn't know the answer.
If all that is needed to ensure integrity is that the WAL is fsynced,
what is wrong with just going:
wal_sync_method = fsync
fsync = false
The assumption that WAL is all t
The problem here is not with pg_dump; the problem is that dropping
privileges doesn't cascade to dropping objects that are dependent on
those privileges. AFAICS the SQL spec requires us to be able to do
the latter.
The spec really requires that?? So basically we have RESTRICT and
CASCADE on REV
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:52:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> AFAICS your proposal does not support this. The two cursors' snapshots
>> will differ only in the recorded current-cid for the outer transaction.
>> If the subtrans has overwritten xmin/cmin,
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:52:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> BEGIN;
> DECLARE CURSOR c1 FOR SELECT * FROM a ...;
> INSERT INTO a VALUES(...); -- call this row x
> DECLARE CURSOR c2 FOR SELECT * FROM a ...;
> BEGIN;
> DELETE FROM a WHERE ...;-- assume
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is exactly the same argument as not being able to overwrite cmin.
> Basically the phantom xid's are a shorthand for saying the tuple was
> created by xid1 and deleted by xid2, both part of the same main
> transaction.
> A cursor
Hi,
Any updates/opinions? Should we convert assign hooks to perform actual
assignment and custom validation instead of just custom validation? It is
clear from README that it is for validation purposes only..
Or Shall i look for some place else to perform conversion?
Shridhar
On Tuesday 01 Ju
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we need a proper 'effective user' facility.
> At the moment, there's breakage if a super user creates a language, then
> drops their superuser privs, then the dump cannot be restored.
The problem here is not with pg_dump; the problem
Fabien COELHO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Due to how ACL are defined in SQL, I restate my suggestion that the super
> user should be able to change ANY right, including the GRANTOR field,
I'm unconvinced of this: that philosophy soon leads you into allowing
the superuser to create self-inconsist
> Hmmm, snipped from your reply was the explain plan from the query
where it
> was clear you were using two different character data types: bpchat
and
> text. That, alone, may have been a problem.
> Looking at your defaults, did you do:
> initdb --locale=C somepath
I reran initdb --locale=C yester
On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 18:44, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > REVOKE ALL ON TABLE foo FROM GRANTOR [USER] alice;
> >
> > The super user must really be a *super* user.
>
> I think we need a proper 'effective user' facility.
>
> At the moment, there's breakage if a super user creates a language,
In SQLite or MySQL there is a statement INSERT OR REPLACE , is something
like this in postgres , or could be ?
No, there isn't and there currently isn't anyone working on adding it.
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your d
Hi
In SQLite or MySQL there is a statement INSERT OR REPLACE , is something
like this in postgres , or could be ?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
REVOKE ALL ON TABLE foo FROM GRANTOR [USER] alice;
The super user must really be a *super* user.
I think we need a proper 'effective user' facility.
At the moment, there's breakage if a super user creates a language, then
drops their superuser privs, then the dump cannot be restored.
All other fa
Dear Tom,
> [...]
> Even more interesting, the superuser can't fix it either,
Due to how ACL are defined in SQL, I restate my suggestion that the super
user should be able to change ANY right, including the GRANTOR field, with
an appropriate syntax, something like:
REVOKE ALL ON TABLE foo FROM
59 matches
Mail list logo
