Re: [HACKERS] fix for pg_upgrade

2011-12-08 Thread panam
OK, works now with the recent update. Thanks -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p5059777.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresq

Re: [HACKERS] fix for pg_upgrade

2011-09-30 Thread panam
Great, thanks! -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4856336.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] fix for pg_upgrade

2011-09-28 Thread panam
one on > Windows try this? Thanks panam -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4850735.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] fix for pg_upgrade

2011-09-28 Thread panam
://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/file/n4848829/pg_upgrade_9.1.1.zip pg_upgrade_9.1.1.zip I hope that is what you meant with "pg_upgrade log file". Regards, panam -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4848829.html Sen

Re: [HACKERS] fix for pg_upgrade

2011-09-27 Thread panam
Hi Bruce, here is the whole dump (old DB): http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/file/n4844725/dump.txt dump.txt Regards, panam -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4844725.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] fix for pg_upgrade

2011-09-26 Thread panam
t's a bit of work as I have to expunge some sensitive schema data, or is there a meaningful way to just do the dump for a single db? Thanks & regards, panam -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4843289.html Sent from

Re: [HACKERS] fix for pg_upgrade

2011-09-25 Thread panam
OK, i started once again: I hope the following is the correct way of querying the table corresponding to a relid: -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4838427.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at

Re: [HACKERS] fix for pg_upgrade

2011-09-13 Thread panam
seem to be migrated but the content is missing. I am using Windows 7 64bit (both PG servers are 64 bit as well), everthing on the same machine. Any ideas? Thanks & regards panam -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4798957.html

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Hash Anti Join performance degradation

2011-06-01 Thread panam
dering (in this case even total) and the use case is quite common I guess. Some ideas from an earlier post: panam wrote: > > ... > This also made me wonder how the internal plan is carried out. Is the > engine able to leverage the fact that a part/range of the rows ["/index >

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Hash Anti Join performance degradation

2011-06-01 Thread panam
Maybe it is the way the hashtable is built and that order makes a difference in that case? In short: Why is clustered data not affected? Regards, panam -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Re-PERFORM-Hash-Anti-Join-performance-degradation-tp4443803p4445123.ht