Re: [GENERAL] role missing in dump
Roles are global to a cluster. If you do a pg_dump you will get only the information/data for a particular database. If you do pg_dumpall you will get the information/data for all the databases in the cluster as well as the cluster wide information. Thanks a lot for pointing this out. I was pretty sure that I did miss something - could not imagine that this is a bug. Regards, Thomas -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On 02/03/12 01:25, Ivan Voras wrote: On 28/02/2012 18:17, Rich Shepard wrote: On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, mgo...@isstrucksoftware.net wrote: If we move to Linux, what is the preferred Linux for running Postgres on. This machine would be dedicated to the database only. Michael, There is no 'preferred' linux distribution; the flame wars on this topic died out a decade or so ago. From what you write, I would suggest that you look at one of the Ubunutus http://www.ubuntu.org/. Either the KDE or Gnome versions will appear Microsoft-like; the Xfce version appears more like CDE. Download a bootable .iso (a.k.a. 'live disk) and burn it to a cdrom and you can try it without .installing it. If you do like it, install it from the same disk. The Ubuntus boot directly into the GUI and that tends to be more comfortable for newly defenestrated users. If you like that, but want the more open and readily-available equivalent, install Debian. The ubuntus are derivatives of debian. One interesting thing I've discovered recently is that there is a HUGE difference in performance between CentOS 6.0 and Ubuntu Server 10.04 (LTS) in at least the memory allocator and possibly also multithreading libraries (in favour of CentOS). PostgreSQL shouldn't be particularly sensitive to either of these, but it makes me wonder what else is suboptimal in Ubuntu. I think if you are going to select a member of the Debian family, I would strongly recommend Debian itself. I have the impression that the Debian community is more serious about quality than Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu). Given a choice between RHEL, Centos, and Ubuntu. I would recommend either of RHE or, Centos - the former if you have the budget for the support piece of mind. Red Hat has won awards for its quality of User Service - and Red Hat contributes vastly more effort towards maintaining the Linux kernel than Canonical. In a about a year I will be setting up a server for a JBoss/PostgreSQL based application. Currently I'm thinking of using either Centos (RHEL if we get sufficient budget) or Debian, but I will defer the actual decision to nearer the time. I use Fedora for my development box, and my current test server runs Ubuntu (not my choice, but I see no significant reasons for changing it at the moment, though I'm tempted). Cheers, Gavin
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
Lørdag 3. mars 2012 01.43.29 skrev Gavin Flower : I think if you are going to select a member of the Debian family, I would strongly recommend Debian itself. I have the impression that the Debian community is more serious about quality than Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu). I haven't run Debian for ten years, when I had a headless old PC running with a LAMP stack. Since I discovered Gentoo, that has been my preferred distro. However, I'm currently in the process of setting up a dedicated Web server with Debian as it may one day be another person's responsibility to admin this box, and I would consider it cruel to leave a Gentoo box to anyone but the most devoted Linux fans. My current gripe is this: The «stable» version of Postgres on Debian is 8.4. In order to install 9.1, I added this line to /etc/apt/sources.list: deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free Then I did an apt-get update and apt-get install postgresql-9.1 postgresql-client-9.1 Finally I commented out the added line of /etc/apt/sources.list. This seems a rather roundabout way, is there a better one? regards, Leif -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
Two quick notes: First, you really want a long-term support release. Your main options here are Debian and spinoffs (Ubuntu LTS, for example) and RedHat Enterprise and spinoffs (CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc). If you know one of these groups go with it. Second, GUI's usually come separate from the distro. You can choose GNOME, KDE, XFCE, etc. depending on your taste. Really the best way to go is to try a bunch out and see what you like. If you are doing development, you want a cutting-edge distros (so something like Debian Testing, Ubuntu, or Fedora). Best Wishes, Chris Travers
[GENERAL] Content management system to build web site with PostgreSql, should it be WordPress
I’m looking for a way to build web site which uses PostgreSql to store web pages and allow users to modify them. Admin user should able to create and changed pages using html editor from browser. Site runs in Debian Squeeze x64 VPS using Apache. There are Mono 2.8 and PostgreSql 9.1 applications running in this VPS. There is no PHP installed but it can probably installed if software requires this. CMS should provide nice dark theme for web site so that web designer is not required for this. WordPress PostgreSql plugin page http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/postgresql-for-wordpress/ states this this plugin is not compatible with latest wordpress. Also this plugin is not updated for a while. Joomla! does not run in Postgres DBMS. Drupal 7 seems to support it but comparing to WordPress Drupal usage is smaller. There are mono ASP.NET applications running in this site so using some ASP.NET CMS seems best. Latest Orchad does not run in Mono and PostgreSQL. Which software is best for PostgreSql ? Andrus.
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On 03/03/2012 10:33, Leif Biberg Kristensen wrote: Lørdag 3. mars 2012 01.43.29 skrev Gavin Flower : I think if you are going to select a member of the Debian family, I would strongly recommend Debian itself. I have the impression that the Debian community is more serious about quality than Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu). I haven't run Debian for ten years, when I had a headless old PC running with a LAMP stack. Since I discovered Gentoo, that has been my preferred distro. However, I'm currently in the process of setting up a dedicated Web server with Debian as it may one day be another person's responsibility to admin this box, and I would consider it cruel to leave a Gentoo box to anyone but the most devoted Linux fans. My current gripe is this: The «stable» version of Postgres on Debian is 8.4. In order to install 9.1, I added this line to /etc/apt/sources.list: deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free Then I did an apt-get update and apt-get install postgresql-9.1 postgresql-client-9.1 Finally I commented out the added line of /etc/apt/sources.list. This seems a rather roundabout way, is there a better one? You can get Postgres 9.1 from backports.debian.org: deb http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports squeeze-backports main Ray. -- Raymond O'Donnell :: Galway :: Ireland r...@iol.ie -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Leif Biberg Kristensen l...@solumslekt.org wrote: My current gripe is this: The «stable» version of Postgres on Debian is 8.4. In order to install 9.1... This seems a rather roundabout way, is there a better one? We use Debian at work, and I went for the other favorite way of getting Linux software: compile it from source. That does mean that I have to personally support it, though, and it has a few other consequences (had to compile a couple of other things from source instead of apt-getting them), but it's always a valid option. ChrisA -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Content management system to build web site with PostgreSql, should it be WordPress
On 03/03/2012 11:16, Andrus wrote: I’m looking for a way to build web site which uses PostgreSql to store web pages and allow users to modify them. Admin user should able to create and changed pages using html editor from browser. Site runs in Debian Squeeze x64 VPS using Apache. There are Mono 2.8 and PostgreSql 9.1 applications running in this VPS. There is no PHP installed but it can probably installed if software requires this. CMS should provide nice dark theme for web site so that web designer is not required for this. WordPress PostgreSql plugin page http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/postgresql-for-wordpress/ states this this plugin is not compatible with latest wordpress. Also this plugin is not updated for a while. Joomla! does not run in Postgres DBMS. Drupal 7 seems to support it but comparing to WordPress Drupal usage is smaller. Drupal is a very powerful CMS, and is very flexible - you can make it do nearly anything you want. There are tons of free add-one modules and themes available for it. Core Drupal runs without problems on PostgreSQL, as do all the main add-on modules you're likely to need (Views, etc); some not-so-well-written modules may not, though it's not a problem I've ever run into personally. I thought Joomla could be made run on Postgres, though I may be wrong. Ray. -- Raymond O'Donnell :: Galway :: Ireland r...@iol.ie -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
Lørdag 3. mars 2012 12.34.27 skrev Raymond O'Donnell : You can get Postgres 9.1 from backports.debian.org: deb http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports squeeze-backports main Ah, sweet, thank you! regards, Leif -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Leif Biberg Kristensen l...@solumslekt.org wrote: My current gripe is this: The «stable» version of Postgres on Debian is 8.4. In order to install 9.1, I added this line to /etc/apt/sources.list: deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free Then I did an apt-get update and apt-get install postgresql-9.1 postgresql-client-9.1 Finally I commented out the added line of /etc/apt/sources.list. This seems a rather roundabout way, is there a better one? We use something like this to put 8.4 on an older debian release. I'm guessing that substituting the right repo and version would work for 9.1 sudo apt-get -t lenny-backports install \ postgresql-8.4 \ postgresql-client-8.4 \ postgresql-client-common \ postgresql-common \ postgresql-contrib-8.4 \ postgresql-plpython-8.4 \ postgresql-8.4-slony1 \ Note the -t switch. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Leif Biberg Kristensen l...@solumslekt.org wrote: My current gripe is this: The «stable» version of Postgres on Debian is 8.4. In order to install 9.1... This seems a rather roundabout way, is there a better one? We use Debian at work, and I went for the other favorite way of getting Linux software: compile it from source. That does mean that I have to personally support it, though, and it has a few other consequences (had to compile a couple of other things from source instead of apt-getting them), but it's always a valid option. When I was running a VERY busy pgsql site and needed to be able to report a bug, get a patch and apply it quickly. It's quite easy to patch a system running source code. If you've got racks of postgresql servers you'd build new packages. If you've got two servers in failover, building from source is faster and easier. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote: Two quick notes: First, you really want a long-term support release. Your main options here are Debian and spinoffs (Ubuntu LTS, for example) and RedHat Enterprise and spinoffs (CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc). If you know one of these groups go with it. Note that you can also start on short term releases then slide into a long term release when a new one comes out, IF you're developing now for a release some years in the future. I.e. start on Fedora Core, and migrate to Centos or RHEL, or start on non-LTS builds of ubuntu and so on. For OSes that have shorter spaces between LTS releases like Ubuntu this is often the best way to put a fast system in the field from development. But keep in mind you may have work fixing any issues that pop up from an upgrade before or shortly after you go live. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Problems with non use of indexes
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Tyler Durden tylersti...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I can't figure out why query planner doesn't use the proper index, anyone can help me? This query properly uses indexes: mydb=# EXPLAIN SELECT U0.object_id FROM activity_follow U0 WHERE (U0.content_type_id = 3 AND U0.user_id = 1); Query plan: http://explain.depesz.com/s/ccJ No order by in the above. Order by in the below: mydb=# EXPLAIN SELECT activity_action.id, activity_action.actor_id, activity_action.verb, activity_action.action_content_type_id, activity_action.action_object_id, activity_action.target_content_type_id, activity_action.target_object_id, activity_action.public, activity_action.created, auth_user.id, auth_user.username, auth_user.first_name, auth_user.last_name, auth_user.email, auth_user.password, auth_user.is_staff, auth_user.is_active, auth_user.is_superuser, auth_user.last_login, auth_user.date_joined FROM activity_action INNER JOIN auth_user ON (activity_action.actor_id = auth_user.id) WHERE activity_action.actor_id IN (SELECT U0.object_id FROM activity_follow U0 WHERE (U0.content_type_id = 3 AND U0.user_id = 1 )) ORDER BY activity_action.created DESC LIMIT 100; query plan: http://explain.depesz.com/s/f92O What happens if you drop the order by on it? Just for comparison. I'm guessing that needing to sort is where the cost is coming from. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] Mix characters with utf-8 characters on the same query
Hi guys!
There's a way to mix characters with utf-8 characters on the same query.
Some thing like this:
Character: . (dot)
UTF-8: *\u002E*
(requisite* can't use regex*)
For this normal query:
select * from foo where email like 'em...@company.com '
Some thing like this:
select * from foo where email like 'email@company*\u002e*com '
But really I need on Full Text Search query:
select * from foo where (full_text_search_vector) @@
(to_tsquery('spanish', 'email@company*\u002e*com:*'))
Please don't think about why we're trying to match a simple dot in this
way.
Thx!
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On 03/03/12 23:33, Leif Biberg Kristensen wrote: Lørdag 3. mars 2012 01.43.29 skrev Gavin Flower : I think if you are going to select a member of the Debian family, I would strongly recommend Debian itself. I have the impression that the Debian community is more serious about quality than Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu). I haven't run Debian for ten years, when I had a headless old PC running with a LAMP stack. Since I discovered Gentoo, that has been my preferred distro. However, I'm currently in the process of setting up a dedicated Web server with Debian as it may one day be another person's responsibility to admin this box, and I would consider it cruel to leave a Gentoo box to anyone but the most devoted Linux fans. My current gripe is this: The «stable» version of Postgres on Debian is 8.4. In order to install 9.1, I added this line to /etc/apt/sources.list: deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free Then I did an apt-get update and apt-get install postgresql-9.1 postgresql-client-9.1 Finally I commented out the added line of /etc/apt/sources.list. This seems a rather roundabout way, is there a better one? regards, Leif To be honest I got into Linux in 1994 when a friend set me up with Debian, the first distribution I installed myself was Red Hat. Though I had previous experience with mainframes and minicomputers, starting in the mid 1970's - COBOL FORTRAN era. (There is a distant possibility I may get back into FORTRAN, as that is run on the HPC's at the University where I now work!!!). My knowledge of Debian is via friend's (an extremely competent and experienced Unix guy who got me into Linux who still runs Debian) comments and what I've noticed on the web. For a Desktop development machine, I currently prefer Fedora, but for a server I need to be more conservative. One place I worked used Ubuntu, but I quickly switched my machine to Fedora, when I found Ubuntu lacked the desktop things I relied on! So I would interested in the answers, also I would need to be able to install JDK7. Cheers, Gavin
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On 03/03/12 2:55 AM, Gavin Flower wrote: My knowledge of Debian is via friend's (an extremely competent and experienced Unix guy who got me into Linux who still runs Debian) comments and what I've noticed on the web. For a Desktop development machine, I currently prefer Fedora, but for a server I need to be more conservative. One place I worked used Ubuntu, but I quickly switched my machine to Fedora, when I found Ubuntu lacked the desktop things I relied on! So I would interested in the answers, also I would need to be able to install JDK7. the server equivalent to Fedora is, of course, RHEL or CentOS.CentOS 6.2 is working very well for us for a range of stuff. JDK7, I dunno, we're still using JDK 6 and trying very hard to stay away from bleeding edge proprietary features. I sure don't see anything here we need for our work: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/features/ but, any version of java can be installed on most anything... JDK's just need to be untarred somewhere (we'll put unpackaged ones in /opt/something) -- john r pierceN 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
Long thread - figured may as well toss in some data: We use CentOS 5 and 6 and install PG from the yum repository detailed on the postgresql.org web site. We've found that the PG shipped as part of the OS can never be trusted for production use, so we don't care what version ships with the OS -- we'll never use it. Regarding JDK7 : some interesting GC features, but as a whole too scary from a stability perspective to commit to in production. Considering most of the good engineers have likely left due to Oracle management, this is an area where we'll let others debug for a year or so before considering adopting. Regarding missing packages from desktop install : for production servers we use the minimal install then explicitly add the packages we need that are not part of that. From experience desktop distributions will install stuff that a) creates security risks and/or b) creates stability risks. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
David Boreham david_l...@boreham.org writes: Long thread - figured may as well toss in some data: We use CentOS 5 and 6 and install PG from the yum repository detailed on the postgresql.org web site. We've found that the PG shipped as part of the OS can never be trusted for production use, so we don't care what version ships with the OS -- we'll never use it. [ raised eyebrow... ] As the person responsible for the packaging you're dissing, I'd be interested to know exactly why you feel that the Red Hat/CentOS PG packages can never be trusted. Certainly they tend to be from older release branches as a result of Red Hat's desire to not break applications after a RHEL branch is released, but they're not generally broken AFAIK. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On 3/3/2012 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: [ raised eyebrow... ] As the person responsible for the packaging you're dissing, I'd be interested to know exactly why you feel that the Red Hat/CentOS PG packages can never be trusted. Certainly they tend to be from older release branches as a result of Red Hat's desire to not break applications after a RHEL branch is released, but they're not generally broken AFAIK. No dissing intended. I didn't say or mean that OS-delivered PG builds were generally broken (although I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see that happen in some distributions, present company excluded). I'm concerned about things like : a) Picking a sufficiently recent version to get the benefit of performance optimizations, new features and bug fixes. b) Picking a sufficiently old version to reduce the risk of instability. c) Picking a version that is compatible with the on-disk data I already have on some set of existing production machines. d) Deciding which point releases contain fixes that are relevant to our deployment. Respectfully, I don't trust you to come to the correct choice on these issues for me every time, or even once. I stick by my opinion that anyone who goes with the OS-bundled version of a database server, for any sort of serious production use, is making a mistake. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 8:23 PM, David Boreham david_l...@boreham.org wrote: On 3/3/2012 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: [ raised eyebrow... ] As the person responsible for the packaging you're dissing, I'd be interested to know exactly why you feel that the Red Hat/CentOS PG packages can never be trusted. Certainly they tend to be from older release branches as a result of Red Hat's desire to not break applications after a RHEL branch is released, but they're not generally broken AFAIK. No dissing intended. I didn't say or mean that OS-delivered PG builds were generally broken (although I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see that happen in some distributions, present company excluded). I'm concerned about things like : a) Picking a sufficiently recent version to get the benefit of performance optimizations, new features and bug fixes. b) Picking a sufficiently old version to reduce the risk of instability. c) Picking a version that is compatible with the on-disk data I already have on some set of existing production machines. d) Deciding which point releases contain fixes that are relevant to our deployment. Respectfully, I don't trust you to come to the correct choice on these issues for me every time, or even once. I stick by my opinion that anyone who goes with the OS-bundled version of a database server, for any sort of serious production use, is making a mistake. I have been generally happy with the RedHat/CentOS/ScientificLinux offerings (with respect to PostgreSQL, specifically). Furthermore, I also make extensive use of openSUSE offerings and generally prefer them. openSUSE has an 8 month release cycle and as a consequence I'm rarely too far behind the latest _stable_ release, while still being able to run the last-most-recent stable release for, I think, 3 years. If I want more, that's what the commercial offerings are for. -- Jon -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM, David Boreham david_l...@boreham.org wrote: I stick by my opinion that anyone who goes with the OS-bundled version of a database server, for any sort of serious production use, is making a mistake. I would qualify this. If you accept the OS-bundled version, you are relinquishing responsibility to the OS packagers. If you install your choice of package, you retain responsibility for choice of version (and if you install from source, you retain even more). It's not a mistake to use the OS-provided version necessarily, but if you have particular needs, you always have the option of picking your own version. ChrisA -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM, David Boreham david_l...@boreham.orgwrote: On 3/3/2012 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: [ raised eyebrow... ] As the person responsible for the packaging you're dissing, I'd be interested to know exactly why you feel that the Red Hat/CentOS PG packages can never be trusted. Certainly they tend to be from older release branches as a result of Red Hat's desire to not break applications after a RHEL branch is released, but they're not generally broken AFAIK. No dissing intended. I didn't say or mean that OS-delivered PG builds were generally broken (although I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see that happen in some distributions, present company excluded). I'm concerned about things like : a) Picking a sufficiently recent version to get the benefit of performance optimizations, new features and bug fixes. b) Picking a sufficiently old version to reduce the risk of instability. c) Picking a version that is compatible with the on-disk data I already have on some set of existing production machines. d) Deciding which point releases contain fixes that are relevant to our deployment. Respectfully, I don't trust you to come to the correct choice on these issues for me every time, or even once. I stick by my opinion that anyone who goes with the OS-bundled version of a database server, for any sort of serious production use, is making a mistake. I can't speak for RHEL (I usually compile from scratch on servers), but here's my take on Fedora: The positive side of going with the distro packages is that you are less likely to forget a minor upgrade, and the compile options are usually more expansive in their support than what you might do on your own. On the negative, I have seen a yum-based upgrade between versions happily upgrade the binaries from 8.4.x to 9.0.x So there is a tradeoff. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On 03/03/12 7:01 PM, Chris Travers wrote: On the negative, I have seen a yum-based upgrade between versions happily upgrade the binaries from 8.4.x to 9.0.x I haven't. the PG 9.x yum packages not only have a different name, they install into different directories. here I have dead stock centos 6, with the fedora epel and the postgres developers group 9.0 repositories added. you can run several versions of postgresql side by side on different ports and data directories.. # yum list postgres\* Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, fastestmirror, refresh-packagekit Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile * base: mirror.san.fastserv.com * epel: linux.mirrors.es.net * extras: centos.mirrors.hoobly.com * updates: mirror.5ninesolutions.com Installed Packages postgresql90.x86_649.0.7-1PGDG.rhel6 @pgdg90 postgresql90-contrib.x86_649.0.7-1PGDG.rhel6 @pgdg90 postgresql90-devel.x86_64 9.0.7-1PGDG.rhel6 @pgdg90 postgresql90-libs.x86_64 9.0.7-1PGDG.rhel6 @pgdg90 postgresql90-server.x86_64 9.0.7-1PGDG.rhel6 @pgdg90 Available Packages postgresql.i6868.4.9-1.el6_1.1 base postgresql.x86_64 8.4.9-1.el6_1.1 base postgresql-contrib.x86_64 8.4.9-1.el6_1.1 base postgresql-devel.i686 8.4.9-1.el6_1.1 base postgresql-devel.x86_648.4.9-1.el6_1.1 base postgresql-docs.x86_64 8.4.9-1.el6_1.1 base postgresql-ip4r.x86_64 1.05-1.el6 epel postgresql-jdbc.x86_64 8.4.701-3.el6 base postgresql-libs.i686 8.4.9-1.el6_1.1 base postgresql-libs.x86_64 8.4.9-1.el6_1.1 base postgresql-odbc.x86_64 08.04.0200-1.el6 base postgresql-plparrot.x86_64 0.04-5.el6 epel postgresql-plperl.x86_64 8.4.9-1.el6_1.1 base postgresql-plpython.x86_64 8.4.9-1.el6_1.1 base postgresql-pltcl.x86_648.4.9-1.el6_1.1 base postgresql-server.x86_64 8.4.9-1.el6_1.1 base postgresql-test.x86_64 8.4.9-1.el6_1.1 base postgresql90-debuginfo.x86_64 9.0.7-1PGDG.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-docs.x86_64 9.0.7-1PGDG.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-jdbc.x86_64 9.0.802-1PGDG.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-jdbc-debuginfo.x86_64 9.0.802-1PGDG.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-libs.i686 9.0.7-1PGDG.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-odbc.x86_64 09.00.0310-1PGDG.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-odbc-debuginfo.x86_64 09.00.0310-1PGDG.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-plperl.x86_64 9.0.7-1PGDG.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-plpython.x86_64 9.0.7-1PGDG.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-pltcl.x86_64 9.0.7-1PGDG.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-python.x86_64 4.0-2PGDG.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-python-debuginfo.x86_64 4.0-2PGDG.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-tcl.x86_641.9.0-1.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-tcl-debuginfo.x86_64 1.9.0-1.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql90-test.x86_64 9.0.7-1PGDG.rhel6 pgdg90 postgresql_autodoc.noarch 1.40-1.rhel6 pgdg90 -- john r pierceN 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 7:39 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote: On 03/03/12 7:01 PM, Chris Travers wrote: On the negative, I have seen a yum-based upgrade between versions happily upgrade the binaries from 8.4.x to 9.0.x I haven't. I thought I was clear that my experiences thus far had not been RHEL/CentOS/SL because I tended to compile my own on such platforms. I have however seen Fedora do that, and it is a caution worth noting going forward. The question is what happens when new versions of RHEL come out, whether the postgresql-server package gets a new major version number. Hopefully by mentioning this now, we will make sure it doesn't ;-) Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote: I thought I was clear that my experiences thus far had not been RHEL/CentOS/SL because I tended to compile my own on such platforms. I have however seen Fedora do that, and it is a caution worth noting going forward. The question is what happens when new versions of RHEL come out, whether the postgresql-server package gets a new major version number. Hopefully by mentioning this now, we will make sure it doesn't ;-) I started using source code on RHEL back when it was using floating point dates instead of integer dates. We were using slony for replication, and we added two Ubuntu 10.04 48 core servers, and since slony versions must be an exact match, it meant we needed to compile slony from source, so it was easy to add postgresql compilation from source to our script at that point. So if you're running a mixed server environment, especially with only a handful of machines, it's often easier to just build from source. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
