Vinesh, Raghavan wrote:
Hello,
PostgreSQL version: 8.2.1
OS: Windows 2003 Server / Windows XP Professional
When I try installation of PostgreSQL by providing an admin account for
postgresql service user the installation fails. According to the release
notes of PostgreSQL 8.2 this is supported.
Hi,
looking at the source code I find out that this works:
sandbox=# create role joe login password 'verysecret';
CREATE ROLE
sandbox=# create function validate_user_8_1(text,text) returns boolean
immutable language 'sql' as $$ select 'md5'||md5($2||$1) = rolpassword from
pg_authid where
Stockho, Jonathan W wrote:
I'm new to postgres, so bare with me.
I installed version 8.2 from rpms on Suse 10.
I then changed to the postgres user and ran initdb.
After that I create a database called movies using the command createdb
movies
Then I used the pg_ctl command to start the
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 05:40:27AM -0800, Ole Laurisch wrote:
Hello,
I would like to install PGSQL on Windows XP and would like to change
the default directory for the data as I would prefer to have my
databases on a specific partition and not on my programm partitition.
What do I have to
[snip]
I afraid I don't see how any of the answers I saw discussed fit a
24x7 operation. Reindex, drop index, vacuum full, ... they all
block production queries of one sort or another for significant
periods of time (minutes) on large (multi/tens of GB) tables,
and thus are infeasible
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 07:16 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 06:29, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
elein wrote:
Have you made any consideration of providing feedback on autovacuum to
users? Right now we don't even know what tables were vacuumed when and
what was
Hello,
You should ask directly to the slony1 mailing list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
(...) The Slony version I'm using is 1.1.2.
The current version of Slony1 is slony1-1.2.6.
Take a scenario that
you want to check the state of the system without prior knowledge of
the node setup, how
As written in documentation Slony-I does not provide any automatic
detection for failed systems.
First of all, you may want to upgrade to the latest stable slony1 version.
But if you have a combination of Slony + Linux HA you can make use of Slony
failover to do an automatic failover when the
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:27:04AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using ALTER TABLE table ALTER field TYPE VARCHAR(newsize) to
change the size requires scanning the entire table. For large tables,
this will be much slower than the pg_attribute query. Both will
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:08:24PM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
Are the plans cached per connection? Why not globally?
Because global plan caching is much harder and nobody has done it yet?
If you use something like pgpool, you ofcourse get the advantages of
cached plans across multiple sessions,
Thats exactly what I'm facing here.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION test(int4)
RETURNS int4 AS
$BODY$
require abc.pl
$BODY$
LANGUAGE 'plperlu' VOLATILE;
SELECT test(23) doesn't run the script inside abc.pl that happens to
be a some insert statements.
Now, when i actually copy and paste
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 08:02:58PM -0700, Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:14:23PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
http://www.commandprompt.com/ :) We are more cost effective and have
been doing it for much, much longer ;)
As somebody with a measure of influence over
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 09:31:49AM +0100, Bertram Scharpf wrote:
Hi,
looking at the source code I find out that this works:
snip
May I rely on this in future versions or are there more
sophisticated ways to do it?
Umm, how much more sophisticated do you want? It's more sophicticated
than
That would explain everything. Except why it's a VARCHAR instead of
DATE. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
As I understood OP, it's a staging table :)
Right. And it's exactly because the original source has bogus data that I
need a staging table to load it up and study it and fix it.
On Friday 19 January 2007 01:47, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 07:16 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 06:29, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
elein wrote:
Have you made any consideration of providing feedback on autovacuum
to users? Right now we don't even
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 09:31:49 +0100,
Bertram Scharpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
looking at the source code I find out that this works:
sandbox=# create role joe login password 'verysecret';
CREATE ROLE
sandbox=# create function validate_user_8_1(text,text) returns boolean
A thousand words. I like the brevity of this post:
http://blog.page2rss.com/2007/01/postgresql-vs-mysql-performance.html
Can't really argue with it.
- Ian
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your
Hi All,
I am getting an error I do not understand from the following setup
CREATE TABLE timesheet_booking
(
timesheet_booking_id bigserial NOT NULL,
operator_id integer,
booking_item_id integer,
day date NOT NULL,
minutes integer NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT timesheet_booking_pkey PRIMARY KEY
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:08:24PM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
Are the plans cached per connection? Why not globally?
Because global plan caching is much harder and nobody has done it yet?
The idea's been discussed before, and there are at least
On Friday January 19 2007 2:11 am, Csaba Nagy wrote:
I afraid I don't see how any of the answers I saw discussed
fit a 24x7 operation. Reindex, drop index, vacuum full, ...
they all block production queries of one sort or another for
significant periods of time (minutes) on large
I ran into a similar problem and the solution I came up with (which
admittedly feels like a kludge) was to temporarily disable the triggers
on the table being modified while an update was made and then
re-enabling them immediately after the update. I am sure there is
potential for problems with
Ed L. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Online index creation definitely helps us toward 24x7. But
wouldn't we still have to drop the old index, thus blocking
production queries?
Yes, but only for a very short period.
regards, tom lane
---(end of
Stockho, Jonathan W [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
createuser: could not connect to database postgres: could not connect to
server: No such file or directory
Is the server running locally and accepting connections on
Unix domain socket /tmp/.s.PGSQL.0?
.0? That suggests that the
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 17:48 -0800, Richard Troy wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Spam is spam. I don't care what they're selling. Anyone dumb enough to
send spam in 2006 should be fired on the spot.
That is a bit extreme. One persons SPAM is another persons
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Guy Fraser wrote:
Josh, under the law, that's not spam. Individually written emails are
never spam even if they may be unsolicited sales material. So, rest
assured.
Richard
You are oh so wrong in so many ways.
SPAM is a term used for unsolicited email of any
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 12:21 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote:
Start a fresh connection.
OK. Better than having to restart the whole server, which is what I was
doing...
Just to clarify, you don't have to restart the whole server. All you
have to do is disconnect the client, and reconnect.
On 1/19/07, Guy Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I feel that all @en25.com and @enterprisedb.com should be
considered for banning from the PostgreSQL mailing lists without
a better apology than has been given to date:
Thats a bit harsh IMO. Many of the enterprisedb people are active
Howard Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I try the following query:
delete from operator where operator_id=283;
I get the following error message:
ERROR: could not open relation with OID 438427
SQL state: XX000
Context: SQL statement UPDATE ONLY public.timesheet_booking SET
On 1/18/07, Scott Ribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to force a flush of all cached plans? Particularly, to force
re-evaluation of immutable stored procedures? Don't worry, it's a testing
development thing, not something I want to do during production ;-)
Also, somebody correct me
Is it feasible to add a reindex concurrently that doesn't lock the
table for the rebuild, then locks the table when doing a second pass to
pickup rows that were changed after the first pass? Or something like
that
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:45:03 -0500, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ed L.
SPAM is a term used for unsolicited email of any kind... sent to a large
number...
Thus the use of the word bulk.
--
Scott Ribe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked
I have a primary key made up of two varchar(128) columns, typically less
than 16 chars each. Concatenating the two columns would still be unique.
Would it make sense to concat the two columns, using a unique separator
like '~' and index on that single column or would that be more trouble
than
On 1/19/07, Garth Keesler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a primary key made up of two varchar(128) columns, typically less
than 16 chars each. Concatenating the two columns would still be unique.
Would it make sense to concat the two columns, using a unique separator
like '~' and index on that
Also, somebody correct me if I'm off my rocker here, but immutable
procedures are re-evaluated for each execution...they are just folded
into a constant during plan phase.
You would need to actually create an immutable function in order to test how
immutable functions work ;-) And apparently
I thought as much.
Thanx for the reply,
Garth
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 1/19/07, Garth Keesler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a primary key made up of two varchar(128) columns, typically less
than 16 chars each. Concatenating the two columns would still be unique.
Would it make sense to
Alan Hodgson wrote:
On Thursday 18 January 2007 15:54, Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone else get spam from EnterpriseDB today, talking about
Postgresql Support Services?
yep. You really would think that even the marketing weenies might know
better by now.
I do think that
On 1/19/07, Scott Ribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, somebody correct me if I'm off my rocker here, but immutable
procedures are re-evaluated for each execution...they are just folded
into a constant during plan phase.
You would need to actually create an immutable function in order to test
On 19 Jan 2007 12:12:34 -0800, Karen Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan Hodgson wrote:
On Thursday 18 January 2007 15:54, Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone else get spam from EnterpriseDB today, talking about
Postgresql Support Services?
yep. You really would think that even
d'oh! that was just a transcription error though...if you create f()
returning bigint and immutable it produces the same results.
So I see. But...
pedcard=# create function f2() returns boolean as $$ begin return 't'; end;
$$ language plpgsql immutable;
CREATE FUNCTION
pedcard=# create
Hello list,
I downloaded the 8.0.10 rpms for FC4 yesterday and after installing
it, postgresql won't start. I get the following error: An old
version of the database format was found My previous postgresql
version was 8.0.8 and I read nothing on the release notes about a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/19/07 11:51, Guy Fraser wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 17:48 -0800, Richard Troy wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
[snip]
I feel that all @en25.com and @enterprisedb.com should be
considered for banning from the PostgreSQL
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 12:52 -0800, Dianne Yumul wrote:
I downloaded the 8.0.10 rpms for FC4 yesterday and after installing
it, postgresql won't start. I get the following error: An old
version of the database format was found My previous postgresql
version was 8.0.8 and I read
Added to TODO:
o Allow multiple vacuums so large tables do not starve small
tables
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-01/msg00031.php
o Improve control of auto-vacuum
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00876.php
Rather simple question, of which I'm not sure of the answer.
If I have a multiple column index, say:
Index index1 on tableA (foo,bar)
and I then:
Select * from tableA where foo = some value
Will index1 be used, or am I looking at a seqscan in all circumstances?
TIA
-jan m
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
[snip]
Another thought, is it at all possible to do a partial vacuum? ie spend the
next 30 minutes vacuuming foo table, and update the fsm with what hew have
learned over the 30 mins, even if we have not done a full table scan ?
There was a proposal for this, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/19/07 15:53, Jan Muszynski wrote:
Rather simple question, of which I'm not sure of the answer.
If I have a multiple column index, say:
Index index1 on tableA (foo,bar)
and I then:
Select * from tableA where foo = some value
That's interesting. So if you have a composite index on two columns, is
there much of a reason (usually) to create single indexes on each of the
two columns? I guess the single indexes might be slightly faster
depending on the number of different values/combinations, so probably
it depends eh?
I am using LinuxHA to manage the failover and Slony as part of to
failover to move to the healthy node. But my question was more along
the lines, if a user has access to both databases (master and slave)
but does not know which one is which, how can you tell?
Take a scenario: you configure 2
Toni Casueps wrote:
I have a set of tables with one-to-many relationships between them:
T1 -- T2 -- T3 -- T4
I need to copy some rows of these tables to another set of tables which
have
the same fields. There are two rows on T1 that I want to copy, and then
those rows of T2
It might make more sense to use your own table of users and hashed
passwords
rather than postgres'. This would depend somewhat on the overlap of users
who
are using your application and those who connect directly to the database.
If there isn't much overlap, having a separate table is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks. Am I correct in assuming that this scanning of the entire
table is done when I use the 'ALTER TABLE' command and not something I
must do after it's done?
Yes, ALTAR TABLE ... scans through the entire table when it does the
update, it's not something you need
G'day folks,
I'm faily new to the world of Postgre so excuse me if these questions seem ignorant.
My current employer develops a software package which runs on OpenVMS on HP Alpha/Itanium servers and contains a custom
database comprised of various format text and binary files. I.e. not in a
Hello,
my customer, ntl:Telewest is using an open source 'file upload progress
bar' called NeatUpload to help users to upload video files to a MS SQL
database. They want to replace the MS SQL database with
Solaris/PostgreSQL and ZFS.
There is an extension to NeatUpload that enables this to
If I have an index that's composed of 2 columns:
Index index1 on tableA (foo,bar)
and I then:
Select cola, colb from tableA where foo=value
Will index1 still be used, or am I looking at a seqscan under all
circumstances in this case?
TIA
-jan m
---(end of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yes, it depends.
Given the example from OP, if you have queries that only reference
field bar, then the query optimizer will do a seqscan on the table.
You would need a separate index on bar
And, given index1, you do not need another index on foo
Rather simple question, of which I'm not sure of the answer.
If I have a multiple column index, say:
Index index1 on tableA (foo,bar)
and I then:
Select * from tableA where foo = some value
Will index1 be used, or am I looking at a seqscan in all circumstances?
TIA
-jan m
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:51:18 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
one second it took to move the mail to my spam folder. Yes, we all know
how annoying and stupid spam is but there is a human element here that
puts things in slightly different light, don't you think?
Absolutely! I'd like to know how
Sorry, I know of no way to get a status bar that shows how far the an
INSERT or COPY has progressed. People have asked for it, but no one has
any idea how to implement it.
---
Benedict Faria wrote:
Hello,
my customer,
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 18:24:32 +0200,
Andrus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might make more sense to use your own table of users and hashed
passwords
rather than postgres'. This would depend somewhat on the overlap of users
who
are using your application and those who connect directly
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 15:22:12 -0500,
Jan Muszynski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I have an index that's composed of 2 columns:
Index index1 on tableA (foo,bar)
and I then:
Select cola, colb from tableA where foo=value
Will index1 still be used, or am I looking at a seqscan
The following location contains PostgreSQL C functions for generating
lanmanager and ntlm password hashes. Feel free to use as you see fit.
http://www.yellowbank.com/code/PostgreSQL/y_ntlm/
Best.
--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/
---(end of
On 1/19/07, Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org wrote:
ALTER TABLE, to be correct, actually has to check the entire table to
make sure it's ok. By doing it directly you're basically telling the DB
it's OK.
For making a varchar column longer it's safe though, and the easiest way.
Is it
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 18:20:47 -0500,
Jeremy Haile [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's interesting. So if you have a composite index on two columns, is
there much of a reason (usually) to create single indexes on each of the
two columns? I guess the single indexes might be slightly faster
I don't think he's looking for progress information, I think he is
looking to be able to insert in chunks, which I don't know much about,
but I think the some of the binary types (bytea or blob) support this.
Anyone?
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Sorry, I know of no way to get a status bar that shows
Please find answers to your questions below:
1.) Would running Postgre and SQL Server on the same machine cause any
conflict with each other (other then competing for
CPU/Memory)
I don't think so that will be a problem except that it is not always a good
idea to keep two database servers on
Should help -- ALTER TABLE tablename ALTER columname TYPE text;
Shoaib Mir
EnterpriseDB (www.enterprisedb.com)
On 1/20/07, Kelly Burkhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/19/07, Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org wrote:
ALTER TABLE, to be correct, actually has to check
66 matches
Mail list logo
