Hi all,
Arnau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I don't know, we have discovered those two rows but I'm not sure if
there are more. Is there any way to check it?
Update and see if the problem is gone ...
We have done:
update customer_app_config set customer_app_config_id =
customer_app_con
Hi all
Probably is a stupid question,
But I m a newbie and I dont want to destroy my server :-)
Is possible to install two different version of postgresql on the same
Linux server? I want to install the 8.2 version in a server where is
installed 8.1.3 version
If the answer is affir
Am 30.01.2007, 12:46 Uhr, schrieb Bottini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi all
Probably is a stupid question,
But I ‘m a newbie and I don’t want to destroy my server :-)
Is possible to install two different version of postgresql on the same
Linux server? I want to install the 8.2 version in a serv
"Bottini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is possible to install two different version of postgresql on the same
> Linux server? I want to install the 8.2 version in a server where is
> installed 8.1.3 version
You can, but not when installing from RPM: the RPMs have a fixed idea of
where to put th
Why would you want two servers on the same box ??? There's this thing called
"schemas" within one database... and postgreSQL is very capable of managing
multiple databases from the same server
If you insist on trying to run two postgreSQL server on teh same box -- You
also need to make sure
and from the shell prompt: you can find ALL postgreSQL process id's by:
%>ps ax | grep postgres
""Eduardo J. Ortega"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You can also kill the postgres process corresponding to the hung query. do
> NOT
> kill -9. Only kill. Postgres
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 12:01:26 -0500,
Tom Dong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We are wondering whether there has been US Commerce Department review of
> the Postgres application for export. Specifically, we understand
> Postgres contains encryption capabilities, and we would like to include
>
Not really. The review process is more like disclosure than control.
For shipping oversea, any products involving encryption must disclose
the encryption features/capabilities. Commercial products usually have
already gone through this process by the vendors, namely disclosed to
the government.
We run two servers when we are trying out new versions (development, qa,
and production). And,
its a failsafe for upgrades. Since you need to unload for major
upgrades anyway, it is completely
reasonable.
Naomi
codeWarrior wrote:
> Why would you want two servers on the same box ??? There's this
Tom Dong wrote:
> We are wondering whether there has been US Commerce Department review
> of the Postgres application for export.
The Debian project submits all software it distributes to said
department, so one can be fairly assured that they have heard of
PostgreSQL, but how that affects what
I am still searching for information on the internet about Postgres
Export review by US Commerce department.
I did see an early email posted on POstgres mailing list about ECCN
number of Postgres and saw the response debating if Postgres should be
considered a US product. But I did not see any c
Tom Dong wrote:
> I am still searching for information on the internet about Postgres
> Export review by US Commerce department.
>
> I did see an early email posted on POstgres mailing list about ECCN
> number of Postgres and saw the response debating if Postgres should be
> considered a US produ
I should be a little more specific. The way we currently do backups is that
this backup user dumps user/group data (i.e. the --globals-only flag) for
pg_dumpall, and we pg_dump individual databases.
We grant read access to this backup user for all non-system
tables/views/etc. (and usage for non-s
"Peter Koczan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, is there any remedy to my problem (see below) short of granting
> superuser access? Is this a bug (which I would then report on the
> appropriate channels)?
It's not a bug.
> As for Tom's suggestion, there's no way to specify the database in
> pg_d
Hello,
I'm trying to install and init 8.2.1 on a FreeBSD 6.2 server. It used to run
8.1.4 no problem. I uninstalled 8.1, renamed /usr/local/pgsql in case I
ever need it (I'm not really bothered about preserving the data) and built
8.2.1 - all fine.
But when I try to initdb:
---
[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 01:27 +, Simon Kinsella wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to install and init 8.2.1 on a FreeBSD 6.2 server. It used to run
> 8.1.4 no problem. I uninstalled 8.1, renamed /usr/local/pgsql in case I
> ever need it (I'm not really bothered about preserving the data) and buil
"Simon Kinsella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> /usr/local/bin/initdb -D /usr/local/pgsql/data -E UNICODE
> initdb: file "/usr/local/share/postgresql/postgres.bki" does not exist
> This means you have a corrupted installation or identified
> the wrong directory with the invocation
Am Dienstag, 30. Januar 2007 23:03 schrieb Tom Dong:
> I did see an early email posted on POstgres mailing list about ECCN
> number of Postgres and saw the response debating if Postgres should be
> considered a US product.
According to the lawyers I'm involved with, the contributions by US citizen
18 matches
Mail list logo
