Hello
2008/7/17 ram subbu [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi All,
Here i am facing a peculiar scenario. I have a query which always result
in 3 rows. There are two columns in the query result. I have to make the
result of 3 rows as a one row
select * from tab1;
col1---col2
---
1
Hello!
Is there any opportunity to find out what compilier is used to build standard
binaries from http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/v8.3.3/win32/
(postgresql-8.3.3-1-binaries-no-installer.zip
MSVC or MinGW(gcc)?
I have some problems with C-procedures compilation (PG 8.3, WinXP). I've got
the
2008/7/17 el dorado [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello!
Is there any opportunity to find out what compilier is used to build standard
binaries from http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/v8.3.3/win32/
(postgresql-8.3.3-1-binaries-no-installer.zip
MSVC or MinGW(gcc)?
I have some problems with
Hello Tom,
Il giorno 16/lug/08, alle ore 16:40, Tom Lane ha scritto:
Enrico Sirola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have two tables, one has a field with a foreign key pointing to the
primary key of another table. When I to drop the first table, I get
the following error:
test=# drop table
Hi Michael,
Il giorno 16/lug/08, alle ore 18:21, Michael Glaesemann ha scritto:
On 2008-07-16, at 7:18 AM, Enrico Sirola wrote:
Hi,
I'm using postgresql version 8.3.1
I have two tables, one has a field with a foreign key pointing to
the primary key of another table. When I to drop the
See! these fabulous talks:
http://pugs.postgresql.org/view/pdxpugtalksview
Meet! those PDXPUGers you keep hearing about!
Enjoy! tasty food beverages at the afterparty!
Sign up here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=paoTJ9uEi8vIqumUzwzrCAwemail=true
Please sign up for free admission
Hello:
This posting is a follow up to this posting from July 15th.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2008-07/msg00569.php
Given the following select statement
select sec.*
from security sec , positions_gsco
where positions_gsco.securitykey is NULL and
hi
I have one of those master-detail relationships here and I need to be able
to delete the master but leave the details untouched
But the delete command doesn't let me delete the master as long as
there are details referencing it.
ON DELETE RESTRICT | NO ACTION won't let me delete the master
Moving to -general. -hackers is for discussion about PG development.
On Jul 16, 2008, at 1:10 AM, cinu wrote:
Hi All, I installed PostgreSQL-8.3.1 on my Suse Linux machine
You should upgrade; I'm pretty sure 8.3 is up to 8.3.3 now.
, it went on fine without any problems and I was able to
am Thu, dem 17.07.2008, um 11:11:00 -0500 mailte Ismael folgendes:
hi
I have one of those master-detail relationships here and I need to be able
to delete the master but leave the details untouched
But the delete command doesn't let me delete the master as long as
there are details
On 17/07/2008 17:11, Ismael wrote:
ON DELETE RESTRICT | NO ACTION won't let me delete the master
CASCADE | SET NULL | SET DEFAULT will modify the details
Can you just drop the constraint that's doing the referential integrity?
Ray.
So is there no other way to do it but to verify the integrity using triggers
and drop the referential constraints?
Because I *still* need to verify that NEW records in the details table
direct to something that exists
ON DELETE RESTRICT | NO ACTION won't let me delete the master
CASCADE |
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Ismael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi
I have one of those master-detail relationships here and I need to be able
to delete the master but leave the details untouched
Then remove the referential integrity constraint, since it's obviously
incompatible with
What does the output of explain select sec.* ... have to say?
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Douglas McNaught [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Ismael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi
I have one of those master-detail relationships here and I need to be able
to delete the master but leave the details untouched
Then remove
It seems like 3 vs 1 so you win :)
I'll drop the constraint and verify the integrity of the new records manually
tanks
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Douglas McNaught wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Ismael wrote:
hi
I have one of those master-detail relationships here
Hi,
I was looking at the TODO:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.TODO.html
A hyphen, -, marks changes that will appear in the upcoming 8.4 release.
Well, making a search for the - sign is complicated... it's obviously
used for a lot of other things... could you use another character?
Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Moving to -general. -hackers is for discussion about PG development.
On Jul 16, 2008, at 1:10 AM, cinu wrote:
Can anyone throw light on why the postmaster.pid was not visible,
My guess would be that something went in and removed the .pid file.
I was
hi
I have one of those master-detail relationships here and I need to be able
to delete the master but leave the details untouched
when you create the table with an FK constraint, use the ON DELETE SET
NULL option, or SET DEFAULT. And read the docs on CREATE TABLE:
-Allow administrators to safely terminate individual sessions either
via an SQL function or SIGTERM
Can't you already do this with pg_cancel_backend() or kill child pid?
Or is this for something else altogether?
-salman
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
Hi all,
this is from the is there a way file.
Is there a way to get the name of the relation or relations in a query
from within the query? Like some kind of magic variable...?
for example :
select *, some_magic_variable from thistable
where some_magic_variable would be replaced by
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Ismael wrote:
So is there no other way to do it but to verify the integrity using triggers
and drop the referential constraints?
Well, you could do something using a before delete trigger on the
referencing table that returns NULL to avoid the delete as well, but
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering if the postmaster was running in some other data
directory than the OP thought. I've never heard of anything just
randomly removing a .pid file from a data directory; and it would
be extremely dangerous if that
So is there no other way to do it but to verify the integrity using triggers
and drop the referential constraints?
Well, you could do something using a before delete trigger on the
referencing table that returns NULL to avoid the delete as well, but
making it only prevent the deletions
Hi all,
this is from the is there a way file.
Is there a way to get the name of the relation or relations in a query
from within the query? Like some kind of magic variable...?
for example :
select *, from thistable
where would be replaced by thistable.
Rhys
Rhys A.D. Stewart escribió:
Is there a way to get the name of the relation or relations in a query
from within the query? Like some kind of magic variable...?
for example :
select *, some_magic_variable from thistable
where some_magic_variable would be replaced by thistable.
Is there a way to disable some of the autovacuum logging?
I don't want to see the below log over and over again in the logfile.
postgres[85482]: [1-1] : LOG: autovacuum: processing database
test_com
Thanks,
Mike
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make
Kevin Duffy wrote:
So here are the questions for the PSQL gurus:
Is getsectypekey(‘CFD’) executing for every join (or possible join)
between positions_gsco and security?
Causing a scan of security for every possible join.
Does ‘ (select getsectypekey('CFD') ) ‘ cause the getsectype()
Redhat 4
postgresql 8.3.3
Memory: 12GB
While doing a couple of operations of the type
insert into table select from some other table
The OS triggered the out of memory killer (oom-killer).
After some research and trial/error I found it was the inserts.
I see one of the inserts is using up
salman wrote:
-Allow administrators to safely terminate individual sessions either
via an SQL function or SIGTERM
Can't you already do this with pg_cancel_backend() or kill child pid?
Cancel backend only cancels the current query but later queries are
still executed. Kill was never
Scara Maccai wrote:
Hi,
I was looking at the TODO:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.TODO.html
A hyphen, -, marks changes that will appear in the upcoming 8.4 release.
Well, making a search for the - sign is complicated... it's obviously
used for a lot of other things... could
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Redhat 4
postgresql 8.3.3
Memory: 12GB
While doing a couple of operations of the type
insert into table select from some other table
The OS triggered the out of memory killer (oom-killer).
Is this a 32-bit
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Douglas McNaught writes:
Is this a 32-bit installation or 64-bit? 3GB of shared_buffers is way
too big for a 32-bit setup.
64-bit.
The machine has 12GB of RAM so shared-buffers is about 1/3.
Dedicated DB server.
Douglas McNaught writes:
It does seem that reducing work_mem might help you, but others on this
I reduced it from 256MB to 64MB. It seems it is helping.
At 256MB the usage per DB connection instance was upwards of 12GB. At 64MB
so far is around 7GB. I just reduced it further to 32MB and see
Douglas McNaught writes:
Is this a 32-bit installation or 64-bit? 3GB of shared_buffers is way
too big for a 32-bit setup.
64-bit.
The machine has 12GB of RAM so shared-buffers is about 1/3.
Dedicated DB server.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make
35 matches
Mail list logo
