Tom Lane wrote:
[ Shrug... ] I remain of the opinion that 2PC is a solution in search
of a problem, because it does not solve the single point of failure
issue (just moves same from the database to the 2PC controller).
But some people want it anyway, and they aren't going to be satisfied
Joe Conway wrote:
Not if the column is storage type EXTERNAL. See a past discussion here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-07/msg01447.php
what is the reasoning behind this syntax?
ALTER TABLE [ ONLY ] table [ * ]
ALTER [ COLUMN ] column SET STORAGE
{ PLAIN | EXTERNAL |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to know if there are any discussions about
creating an embedded version on postgresql. My thoughts
go towards building/porting a sqlite equivalent of pg.
Yes, there have been several. Peruse the archives:
http://archives.postgresql.org/
--
dave
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
What kind of security restrictions do we want for prepared transactions?
Who has the right to finish a transaction that was started by user A? At
least the original user, I suppose, but who else?
Under what account is the transaction manager typically going to run? A
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Another approach I've been thinking about is to allow anyone that knows
the (user-supplied) global transaction identifier to finish the
transaction, and hide the gids of running transactions from regular
users. That way, the gid acts as a secret token that's only known by
Why doesn't pg_dump include blob by default? I understand that older
pg_dump didn't deal with blobs, and blobs are now kind of obsolete in
favor of BYTEA/TEXT, but blobs are every bit a part of a database.
Perhaps only exclude blobs when -t is specified? Then -b is required to
include blob.
Neil Conway wrote:
I've accepted an offer from Fujitsu Australia Software Technologies to
work on PostgreSQL full-time for them for the next twelve months in
Sydney, Australia. I'll be working with Gavin Sherry and two other
full-time developers from FAST. I'm grateful to Fujitsu for giving me
Jonathan M. Gardner wrote:
Thoughts? Comments? Hasn't Oracle done something like this?
Probably this is more suited to -general?
I haven't done anything near this. I wonder how much more painful it is
to debug the application, put it under version control, etc. Personally,
I can't stand
When postmaster fails to run due to e.g. datadir being set to 755,
'pg_ctl start' incorrectly reports postmaster successfully started.
I'm not sure how to fix this though. Do a [shorter] wait for 'start'
mode by default? Install a child handler (can you even do that with
shell script?)
This
I had datadir in /dir1 and I started postmaster with:
postmaster -D /dir1
this recorded -D /dir1 in /dir1/postmaster.opts. Then I stopped
postmaster and moved /dir1 to /dir2. I then started postmaster with:
PG_DATA=/dir2 pg_ctl start
It worked normally. But:
PG_DATA=/dir2 pg_ctl restart
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed the 7.5 release notes. You can view them in HTML on
the developer web page. I have marked a few items with question marks
that need to be addressed. I am looking for improvements, even minor
ones. Either send in a patch or committers can modify the file
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 09:16:35PM -0400, Alexander Cohen wrote:
Does anyone have any new ways to create clusters without using initdb
or bootstrap mode? I need to be able to create one without those 2
things. Any ideas?
initdb'ing somewhere else and copying the resulting
Tom Lane wrote:
Granted, the script itself is faulty, but since some other OS projects
(like Ruby, with the same x.y.z numbering) do guarantee they never will
have double digits in version number component
Oh? What's their plan for the release after 9.9.9?
As for Ruby, it probably won't expect
This probably has been discussed and is probably a very minor point, but
consider how many more years we want to be able to use the single
digit.single digit major release numbering.
Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 - 7.4.0 = +- 1 year),
then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until
Dave Page wrote:
From: David Garamond
Sent: Sat 6/5/2004 9:28 AM
Cc: postgresql advocacy; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 - 7.4.0 = +- 1 year),
then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until +- jul 2030. if we
Robert Treat wrote:
Given that the cygwin version is currently labeled as not ready for
production I would say you are right. The truth is that many will never
declare win32 good for production simply because of the OS it runs on,
but we still want to make it as solid as possible.
People _do_ use
scott.marlowe wrote:
For me, the only features I'm likely to use in the upcoming releases are
nested transactions. While PITR is a great selling point, and the Windows
Port is something I do look forward to, having to do half my job
programming windows boxes, nested transactions are a feature
Bruce Momjian wrote:
My question is, What can we learn from MySQL? I don't know there is
anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question.
MySQL was my first introduction to SQL databases (I had dabbled with
Clipper and Foxpro years earlier, but only for a couple of months and
had
Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
I've had plenty of pain with cvs in terms of directories not being
first-class etc .. but I don't really contribute to pgsql so you guys
probably don't have the same experience.
I was just curious as it looks like eventually subversion (or arch :-)
will be an
Dustin Sallings wrote:
On Mar 24, 2004, at 11:45, David Garamond wrote:
So one might ask, what *will* motivate a die-hard CVS user? A
real-close Bitkeeper clone? :-)
Since it's illegal for anyone who uses Bitkeeper's free license to
contribute to another project, does anyone know
Michael Glaesemann wrote:
Just to speak up (as an avid lurker), I agree with Jeroen that this
distinction is quite subtle and may cause confusion. Some may even
expect the two to resolve to the same site, as a lot of popular sites
own .com/.net/.org, all resolving to the same site.
Speaking of
Steve Crawford wrote:
Please, don't call it 7.3.6. Streamlining releases is terrible.
7.3.7 or 7.3.6.1 or SOMETHING other than 7.3.6, and just let
7.3.6 be a brown paper bag release (like 6.4.1 was).
There were no code-change differences in this rewrap, so I see no
real need to change the
Dann Corbit wrote:
But for now I suggest that the default prefix on Windows is
C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL
More properly:
%ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL
Another suggestion: %ProgramFiles%\PGDG\PostgreSQL (or even
%ProgramFiles%\PGDG\PostgreSQL 7.5). Apache2 uses %ProgramFiles%\Apache
Group\Apache2.
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:12:28AM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
and cons, none is the one size that fits all magic solution. To select
Does anyone realy believe that there can be a one size fits all
solution? Heck, even Oracle and IBM offer a couple of different
systems,
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
From the Firebird FAQ:
The first beta was released on January 29, 2003. We are hoping to be
close to a full release some time around Easter 2003.
They are at RC8 right now ... running a *wee* bit behind scheduale :)
Yes, they're pretty late. Last time I read, the only major
25 matches
Mail list logo
