I actually do understand the differences among -i (install) -U (upgrade)
and -F (freshen). What I don't understand is why what _should_ work _isn't_
working.
For example, as Lamar and others suggested:
[root@salmo rshepard]# rpm -qa | grep postgres
postgresql-server-6.5.3-1
Anyway, I crashed my system the other day when I did a "select *" from
one
of my large tables (about 5.5gb in size).
Well It takes abit more than that to actually crash the system. Can
you give more details? What _exactly_ happened? Did it hang? Kernel
panicked? Something
In general I am pretty pissed at RH attitude to system
upgrade, if I were working in a Production environment,
I would either hire them and not try anything myself,
which kinda contradicts the whole Linux philosophy.
Can this kind of stuff get put on a Red Hat mailing list, rather than sent
The last thing that a system admin needs when upgrading PostgreSQL is "Oh,
crap, I forgot to uninstall the RPM of the old one first."
If you're switching from RPM to compiling source, that's your own damn
fault. If you're upgrading (rpm -U) then that isn't a concern, as it does it
for you.
Hmm so, if the local administrator wants to compile the source, it
should go in /usr/local. If he wants to use a package manager, it should go
somewhere else? Seems either pedantic or silly to me.
Perhaps, but such is how the FHS came out. FWIW, SCO (what I work on daily)
seems to
For prohjects such as this that have commercial documentation, why don't
they have "patches" for printed books also?
...
It would be an interesting documentation project that would really keep
information organized and relatively accessible ('cause sometimes digging
through webpages and email
product (eg. Excel/MSQuery), how have you set up the DSN, did you reboot 17
times after the install).
Oh, that must be it! I only rebooted 16 times! ;)
Rob Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
no they can't ... they can add to the current license, but they can't
remove it ...
Okay, well that is what's wanted, correct? Or am I reading the mail wrong?
Rob Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
not being from maryland but, i would think that the constitution's
prohibition against ex post facto laws would prevent retro-active
applications of laws, if the usa actually followed the constitution;
but that's another topic...
Ex post facto seems pretty one way. If you drop a cigg butt on the
