On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:29 PM, khizer wrote:
> Hi,
> In postgresql 9.0.4 i connected to a database and trying to make
> queries but
> i am facing memory issue, getting err as glibc detected realloc
> invalid next size
> so kindly requesting u to provide your valuable feed b
On 02/14/12 10:29 PM, khizer wrote:
In postgresql 9.0.4 i connected to a database and trying to
make queries but
i am facing memory issue, getting err as *glibc* detected
*realloc* invalid next size
so kindly requesting u to provide your valuable feed backs
insufficient inf
Hi,
In postgresql 9.0.4 i connected to a database and trying to make
queries but
i am facing memory issue, getting err as *glibc* detected
*realloc* invalid next size
so kindly requesting u to provide your valuable feed backs
Regards
Mehdi
Indeed, there is a log message. My problem was that I missed to add
"listen_address='*'" to my postgresql.conf!
Hope this helps others in future.
Regards,
Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter
Em 30-11-2011 11:17, John DeSoi escreveu:
On Nov 30, 2011, at 5:02 AM, Edson Richter wrote:
I assume that the OpenVPN got disconnected for a few seconds, and came back
again.
My question is: assuming I have enough wal segments on Master side, does the
Slave get synchronized automatically aft
On Nov 30, 2011, at 5:02 AM, Edson Richter wrote:
> I assume that the OpenVPN got disconnected for a few seconds, and came back
> again.
>
> My question is: assuming I have enough wal segments on Master side, does the
> Slave get synchronized automatically after the connection is reestablished
Dear friends,
I have an somewhat unstable link between two different locations
with OpenVPN established and working.
Now, I've configured PostgreSQL 9.0.5 for asynchronous replication.
This morning I got the following message on Slave PostgreSQL log:
--
> > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:05 AM
> > To: Achilleas Mantzios
> > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 9.0 or 9.1 ?
> >
> > It could be worth considering 9.1. Probably by the time you get
> > production ready
2011 7:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 9.0 or 9.1 ?
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Achilleas Mantzios
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > we have been running our infrastructure on 8.3 for quite some years now,
> > and i am thinking it is now time to upgrade all major
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Achilleas Mantzios
wrote:
> Hello,
> we have been running our infrastructure on 8.3 for quite some years now,
> and i am thinking it is now time to upgrade all major parts of our system
> (java, jboss, postgresql).
> I would tend to be a little "radical" and go a l
On 06/16/2011 10:06 AM, Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
Till the end of July i must have finished all the migration to the new versions.
So i am asking what would be better from your perspective to do?
Go for 9.1? or stick to 9.0 and try to deploy it and take the most out of it?
When is a stable (relea
Hello,
we have been running our infrastructure on 8.3 for quite some years now,
and i am thinking it is now time to upgrade all major parts of our system
(java, jboss, postgresql).
I would tend to be a little "radical" and go a little optimistic and greedy
about it.
I have been using 9.0 as a tes
> -Original Message-
> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-
> ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:05 AM
> To: Achilleas Mantzios
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENER
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Achilleas Mantzios
wrote:
> Till the end of July i must have finished all the migration to the new
> versions.
>
> The migration will involve testing of about 5,458 sql statements and the
> migration of some heavily customized in house functions, including
> a ve
It could be worth considering 9.1. Probably by the time you get
production ready version, 9.1 will be already stable (few months I
guess).
The usual answer to that question is - it will be ready when its ready.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes
Hello again! (i got my traditional email-address back!)
we have been running our infrastructure on 8.3 for quite some years now,
and i am thinking it is now time to upgrade all major parts of our system
(java, jboss, postgresql).
I would tend to be a little "radical" and go a little optimistic and
Hey Zhidong,
2011/6/11 Zhidong She
> Hi all,
>
> Could you please give us some typical users that already upgraded to
> version 9.0?
> We have a debate internally on choosing 8.4 or 9.0 as our product
> backend database.
>
> We are switched our current development from 9.0 to 9.1 beta already
wi
I don't have bench marks but upgraded from 8.4 to 9.0 and it works perfect.
No performance issues or problems but I highly recommend 9.0.4!
On Jun 11, 2011 6:56 AM, "Zhidong She" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Could you please give us some typical users that already upgraded to
> version 9.0?
> We have a de
Zhidong She writes:
> We have a debate internally on choosing 8.4 or 9.0 as our product
> backend database.
Well, if it's about stability, a look at the commit logs will convince
you that 9.0 and 8.4 branches are now about on par for bug fix rate.
Since 9.0.4, I count 34 non-documentation patches
Hi all,
Could you please give us some typical users that already upgraded to
version 9.0?
We have a debate internally on choosing 8.4 or 9.0 as our product
backend database.
And if you have any performance benchmark result, I will highly appreciate.
Many thanks,
sheldon
--
Sent via pgsql-gener
> -Original Message-
> From: Emi Lu [mailto:em...@encs.concordia.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 2:06 PM
> To: David Johnston
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] "postgresql-9.0-801.jdbc4.jar" always cause
> "org.postgresql.ut
David,
SqlSession sql_session = sqlSessionFactory.openSession(false);
sql_session.commit();
We'll presume that you intend (intentionally or otherwise) for auto-commit
to be on since you do not reference any actual JDBC method calls here...
I'd like always "autocommit = false"
jdbc8.4
>
> SqlSession sql_session = sqlSessionFactory.openSession(false);
>
> sql_session.commit();
>
>
We'll presume that you intend (intentionally or otherwise) for auto-commit
to be on since you do not reference any actual JDBC method calls here...
> While for "8.4-702 JDBC 4", the same codes
Hello list,
. Postgresql8.3
. mybatis-3.0.5-SNAPSHOT.jar
. mybatis-spring-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
. spring3.0.5
. postgresql-9.0-801.jdbc4.jar
SqlSession sql_session = sqlSessionFactory.openSession(false);
sql_session.commit();
Always got:
===
### Error committing transactio
Thanks to all.
I found the wrong configuration in pg_hba.conf. The problem is solved.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
> On 29/03/2011 14:59, Kalai R wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I am using Windows XP. When I have installed PostgreSQL 9.0.3, the
>> service didn't start automatica
Kalai,
>
> "The postgresql-9.0 service on Local Computer started and then stopped.
> Some services stop automatically if they have no work to do, for example,
> the Performance Logs and Alerts Service"
>
> most likely problem are unavailable ressources, as in:
- PostgreSQL cannot access its data
On 29/03/2011 14:59, Kalai R wrote:
Hi,
I am using Windows XP. When I have installed PostgreSQL 9.0.3, the
service didn't start automatically. In the "Computer Management" I
explicitly start "postgresql-9.0" service, the service didn't start and
following message displayed
"The postgresql-9.0 ser
Hi,
I am using Windows XP. When I have installed PostgreSQL 9.0.3, the service
didn't start automatically. In the "Computer Management" I explicitly start
"postgresql-9.0" service, the service didn't start and following message
displayed
"The postgresql-9.0 service on Local Computer started and t
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 01:14:05AM -0600, Ogden wrote:
> Thank you for letting me know about pg_controldata. I have been playing
> around with this tool.
>
really interesting event/failure last night for me. I started a new
thread on the failure in the admin list. my streaming rep without
Thank you for letting me know about pg_controldata. I have been playing around
with this tool.
I notice on my master server I have:
Latest checkpoint location: 1E3/F220
Prior checkpoint location:1E3/F120
Latest checkpoint's REDO location:1E3/F220
And on t
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 08:51:42PM -0600, Ogden wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Ray Stell wrote:
>
> >
> > pg_controldata command is helpful.
> >
> > Archiving wal not required, but you can roll it either way.
> >
> >
>
> That is my confusion - Archiving wal does not conflict in any
If the standby server cannot pull the WAL file from the master using
streaming replication, then it will attempt to pull it from the archive. If
the WAL segment isn't archived (for example because you aren't using
archiving), then your streaming replication is unrecoverable and you have to
take a
On Feb 8, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Ray Stell wrote:
>
> pg_controldata command is helpful.
>
> Archiving wal not required, but you can roll it either way.
>
>
That is my confusion - Archiving wal does not conflict in any way with
streaming replication? What if streaming replication lags behind (e
pg_controldata command is helpful.
Archiving wal not required, but you can roll it either way.
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 04:46:51PM -0600, Ogden wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have set up PostgreSQL Streaming Replication and all seems to work fine
> when updating records as the records are inst
Hello all,
I have set up PostgreSQL Streaming Replication and all seems to work fine when
updating records as the records are instantaneously updated on the slave,
however, I was wondering perhaps if someone can give me some verification that
what I am doing is alright or some more insight into
Yesterday, my postgresql 9.0 service run well with user postgres. But today
when it start, it have error "The service did not respond to the start or
control request in a timely fashion."
When I change my user start service to "Local System Account" and check
"Allow service to interact with deskto
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 09:18 +0300, Allan Kamau wrote:
> [r...@fc12-macbookpro ~]# yum -y install pgadmin3;
Package is there:
http://yum.pgrpms.org/9.0/fedora/fedora-12-x86_64/repoview/pgadmin3_90.html
Please run
yum install pgadmin3_90
You may need to remove the old one before that.
Regards,
2010/12/3 Devrim GÜNDÜZ :
> On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 12:39 +0300, Allan Kamau wrote:
>>
>> I am unable to obtain (using yum) a version of pgAdmin3 that can
>> connect fruitfully to postgreSQL 9.x. My installation reports that the
>> version I do have 1.10.5 is the latest.
>
> Should be fixed as of yes
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 12:39 +0300, Allan Kamau wrote:
>
> I am unable to obtain (using yum) a version of pgAdmin3 that can
> connect fruitfully to postgreSQL 9.x. My installation reports that the
> version I do have 1.10.5 is the latest.
Should be fixed as of yesterday.
Regards,
--
Devrim GÜND
2010/11/14 Devrim GÜNDÜZ :
>
> I just released PostgreSQL 9.0 RPM for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and
> Fedora 14, on both x86 and x86_64.
>
> Please note that 9.0 packages have a different layout as compared to
> previous ones. You may want to read this blog post about this first:
>
> http://people
I just released PostgreSQL 9.0 RPM for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and
Fedora 14, on both x86 and x86_64.
Please note that 9.0 packages have a different layout as compared to
previous ones. You may want to read this blog post about this first:
http://people.planetpostgresql.org/devrim/index.php?/
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Dr. Peter Voigt wrote:
> Although I have not yet received any feedback from the BitRock
> support,
I closed the ticket with them - we know what the problem was in your
case, and we have enough info to try to put some additional checks in
the installer to prevent it
Although I have not yet received any feedback from the BitRock
support, I have meanwhile done some further tests. Most important
result is that the installer finished flawlessly after I changed the
"TEMP" and "TMP" variables back to the default
"%USERPROFILE%\AppData\Local\Temp".
I am interested t
First of all: Thanks to all who contributed to this issue. There are
many helpful and interesting comments.
I am going to reply to Christian's first question: How did TEMP end up
with this value?
I have just scanned my installation protocol which says, that I made a
registry backup of the curren
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Craig Ringer
wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 06:30 PM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>>> As for 2, I suspect that somewhere in the installer, it walks down the
>>> path
>>> to the TEMP directory, and fails at the junction because it cannot read
>>> the
>>> contents of its target direct
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> * Dave Page wrote:
>
>> So, it sounds like there are two questions for me to figure out - why
>> is the installer not able to follow the link and find the files (which
>> is probably a question for BitRock), and why isn't it using the act
* Dave Page wrote:
Thats very odd, but it explains why things are going wrong -
essentially, the prerequisites are being unpacked to:
C:\Users\Administrator\AppData\Local
But the installer expects to find them in:
C:\Users\Administrator\Lokale Einstellungen\
Which is a link to the first fold
(This is the second time I send this, as the first message apparently did not
make it)
Dr. Peter Voigt, 30.09.2010 14:42:
If there are no other users out there with comparable problems I could
give the ZIP-installer a try under:
http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/pgbindownload.do
There is a f
For the benefit of the list, I've raised this issue with the people
who supply the installer technology, as I can't see any reason why our
code would get this wrong.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Dr. Peter Voigt wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
>
>> A couple of questions for you Peter (and thanks f
Dave Page writes:
> A couple of questions for you Peter (and thanks for bearing with us
> while we figure this out):
>
> - How are you running the installer? Are you logged in as
> "Administrator", or are you using "Run As Administrator" or something
> similar?
I am logged in as "Administrator"
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Dr. Peter Voigt wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Dr. Peter Voigt wrote:
>>> Hi Dharmendra,
>>>
>>> thanks for your reply. This kind of errors, which cannot be reproduced
>>> on other machines are bad and leave no chance for develop
Dave Page writes:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Dr. Peter Voigt wrote:
>> Hi Dharmendra,
>>
>> thanks for your reply. This kind of errors, which cannot be reproduced
>> on other machines are bad and leave no chance for developers to solve
>> them.
>>
>> Unfortunately the installer does not
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Dr. Peter Voigt wrote:
> Hi Dharmendra,
>
> thanks for your reply. This kind of errors, which cannot be reproduced
> on other machines are bad and leave no chance for developers to solve
> them.
>
> Unfortunately the installer does not leave any log files.
Please
Hi Dharmendra,
thanks for your reply. This kind of errors, which cannot be reproduced
on other machines are bad and leave no chance for developers to solve
them.
Unfortunately the installer does not leave any log files. The Windows
event log has no entries about the installation attempt as well.
:53 PM
> Subject: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 9.0 (x86-64) and Windows 7 (x86-64) -
> Unable to install
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
>
>
> I cannot install PostgreSQL 9.0 (x86-64) under Windows 7 (x86-64). The
> installer fails right after starting the installation process with t
I cannot install PostgreSQL 9.0 (x86-64) under Windows 7 (x86-64). The
installer fails right after starting the installation process with the
message:
"An error occurred executing the Microsoft VC++ runtime installer".
I am using the installer from EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com/product
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 01:29, Heine Ferreira wrote:
> Hi
>
> Does Postgresql 9.0 still have the problem with the desktop heap on windows?
> I know you can extend the desktop heap on windows but Microsoft says on
> their web site you musn't extend it beyond 20K.
> That allows for about 300 connect
Hi
Does Postgresql 9.0 still have the problem with the desktop heap on windows?
I know you can extend the desktop heap on windows but Microsoft says on
their web site you musn't extend it beyond 20K.
That allows for about 300 connections on a windows server.
I see there is now also a 64 bit window
Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote on 12.07.2010 21:34:
> > Thom Brown wrote:
> >> Could someone clarify the info in this paragraph:
> >>
> >> "Note that, due to a system catalog change, an initdb and database
> >> reload will be required for upgrading from 9.0Beta1. We encourage
> >> use
Bruce Momjian wrote on 12.07.2010 21:34:
Thom Brown wrote:
Could someone clarify the info in this paragraph:
"Note that, due to a system catalog change, an initdb and database
reload will be required for upgrading from 9.0Beta1. We encourage
users to use this opportunity to test pg_upgrade for
Thom Brown wrote:
> Could someone clarify the info in this paragraph:
>
> "Note that, due to a system catalog change, an initdb and database
> reload will be required for upgrading from 9.0Beta1. We encourage
> users to use this opportunity to test pg_upgrade for the upgrade from
> Beta2 or an ear
Could someone clarify the info in this paragraph:
"Note that, due to a system catalog change, an initdb and database
reload will be required for upgrading from 9.0Beta1. We encourage
users to use this opportunity to test pg_upgrade for the upgrade from
Beta2 or an earlier version of 9.0. Please re
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Glen Barber wrote:
> > Are there plans to have pg_upgrade available in the betas before 9.0 is
> > released?
> >
>
> Yes. It will be added to PG 9.0 CVS within 18 hours, and should be in
> 9.0 beta2. I am in the middle of adding it to CVS now.
>
Fantastic news. Thank
Glen Barber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking for the latest version of pg_migrator, and found in the latest
> release notes [1] that this functionality will be in contrib for 9.0. The
> 2010-04-30 snapshot of beta1 doesn't yet have pg_upgrade in contrib.
>
> I've had issues with pg_migrator on Fre
Hi,
I was looking for the latest version of pg_migrator, and found in the latest
release notes [1] that this functionality will be in contrib for 9.0. The
2010-04-30 snapshot of beta1 doesn't yet have pg_upgrade in contrib.
I've had issues with pg_migrator on FreeBSD, similar to a bug report fil
Daniel Scott writes:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 13:35, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> It was ripped out of the patch before commit because the implementation was
>> not
>> acceptable.
> That's strange - the CommitFest says that it was committed and I can't
> find any mention of it being removed. Is th
Hi,
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 13:35, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> It was ripped out of the patch before commit because the implementation was
> not
> acceptable.
That's strange - the CommitFest says that it was committed and I can't
find any mention of it being removed. Is there somewhere I can see a
Excerpts from Daniel Scott's message of lun may 10 13:20:06 -0400 2010:
> Says "The value PRECEDING and value FOLLOWING cases are currently only
> allowed in ROWS mode."
>
> However, I have found this post:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/e08cc0400912310149me7150cek3c9aa92e4d396...
Hi,
I have a question about a feature in PostgreSQL 9.0.
I am looking for support for windowing functions when using: RANGE
BETWEEN PRECEDING/FOLLOWING AND
PRECEDING/FOLLOWING
The latest documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/sql-expressions.html#SYNTAX-WINDOW-FUNCTIONS
Say
Bruce,
> Having contributors bought out was always one of our three risks, the
> other two being patent and trademark attacks. Not sure what we can
> really do about them.
Actually, the potential for trademark attacks is minimal to nonexistant
according to the attorney's report. So I'm not wor
On 30 Jan 2007 12:15:17 -0800, "Karen Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 11:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Dawid Kuroczko") wrote:
>
>> * updatable views [ or am I missing something? ] -- it seems to me
>> they were close to be completed, but I don't remember if they were
>> completed an
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Updatable views provide a subset of the functionality of rules, but they
> do it automatically without much effort on the part of the DBA. That's
> great, but it won't replace rules.
Exactly --- but there is also a place for a low-effort, "do the right
thin
"Dawid Kuroczko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My point is, its not about throwing money at a problem. PostgreSQL
> seems to be having right people at the right place and benefits from
> it. They do the hard work, they do it well, hence 8.0, 8.1, 8.2 and
> upcoming 8.3 release. If you buy these p
Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> On 1/30/07, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ron Johnson wrote:
> > >> Who would they target anyways?
> > >> There's no one company
> > >
> > > They could buy out CommandPrompt and EnterpriseDB...
> > >
> > > The buyouts wouldn't *kill* pg, but they would wound i
On 1/30/07, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Who would they target anyways?
>> There's no one company
>
> They could buy out CommandPrompt and EnterpriseDB...
>
> The buyouts wouldn't *kill* pg, but they would wound it mightily.
I don't think so. High-profile and
On 30 Jan 2007 12:15:17 -0800, Karen Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Dawid Kuroczko") wrote:
> * updatable views [ or am I missing something? ] -- it seems to me
> they were close to be completed, but I don't remember if they were
> completed and committed
Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Who would they target anyways?
>> There's no one company
>
> They could buy out CommandPrompt and EnterpriseDB...
>
> The buyouts wouldn't *kill* pg, but they would wound it mightily.
I don't think so. High-profile and high priced buyouts
of CommandPrompt and Enterpri
On Jan 29, 11:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Dawid Kuroczko") wrote:
> * updatable views [ or am I missing something? ] -- it seems to me
> they were close to be completed, but I don't remember if they were
> completed and committed or not.
>
PostgreSQL has updatable views via the rules system. I us
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 02:35 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Something different than rules?
> > (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/rules.html) (They exist for
> > a
> > while, I've just linked the latest released docs...)
> >
> Quite. Rules are not updateable views. Rules are a h
Jorge Godoy wrote:
> "Dawid Kuroczko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * updatable views [ or am I missing something? ] -- it seems to me
> > they were close to be completed, but I don't remember if they were
> > completed and committed or not.
>
> Something different than rules?
> (http://www.postg
Jorge Godoy wrote:
"Dawid Kuroczko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
* updatable views [ or am I missing something? ] -- it seems to me
they were close to be completed, but I don't remember if they were
completed and committed or not.
Something different than rules?
(http://www.postgresql.
"Dawid Kuroczko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * updatable views [ or am I missing something? ] -- it seems to me
> they were close to be completed, but I don't remember if they were
> completed and committed or not.
Something different than rules?
(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/
Personally I'm missing two things, which were discussed in the
past, but would be nice to have:
* more efficient storage of varlen data -- some time ago there were
ideas to get rid of constant 4-bytes for length and use more elastic
approach. Smaller tables, bigger performance.
* updatable views
am Tue, dem 30.01.2007, um 8:47:48 +0100 mailte Peter Eisentraut folgendes:
> Karen Hill wrote:
> > I was just looking at all the upcoming features scheduled to make it
> > into 8.3, and with all those goodies, wouldn't it make sense for this
> > to be a 9.0 release instead of an 8.3?
>
> If eve
Karen Hill wrote:
> I was just looking at all the upcoming features scheduled to make it
> into 8.3, and with all those goodies, wouldn't it make sense for this
> to be a 9.0 release instead of an 8.3?
If every release got all the features "scheduled" for it, we'd be at
version 37.0 now. At this
On 29 Jan 2007 13:25:31 -0800, Karen Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was just looking at all the upcoming features scheduled to make it
into 8.3, and with all those goodies, wouldn't it make sense for this
to be a 9.0 release instead of an 8.3? It looks like postgresql is
rapidly catching up t
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 15:51:54 -0800,
Rich Shepard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>
> >It was *discussed*. 8.1 to 8.2 (as does any move from M.x to M.y where x
> >y) requires a dump and reload.
>
> Michael,
>
> That's what I thought. However,
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
Or check the release notes :)
Oooh! What a novel idea. :-)
I don't have the time -- or the need right now -- to upgrade so it's on
the back burner.
Thanks, Michael,
Rich
--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. |The Environmental Per
On Jan 30, 2007, at 8:51 , Rich Shepard wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
It was *discussed*. 8.1 to 8.2 (as does any move from M.x to M.y
where x
y) requires a dump and reload.
Michael,
That's what I thought. However, it never hurts to ask. :-)
Or check the relea
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
It was *discussed*. 8.1 to 8.2 (as does any move from M.x to M.y where x
y) requires a dump and reload.
Michael,
That's what I thought. However, it never hurts to ask. :-)
Rich
--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. |The Environment
On Jan 30, 2007, at 8:38 , Rich Shepard wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
At one point there was discussion about using changes to the first
digit
to indicate that a dump and restore was needed because of an on disk
format change and that changes to the second digit would i
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
At one point there was discussion about using changes to the first digit
to indicate that a dump and restore was needed because of an on disk
format change and that changes to the second digit would indicate that
only catalog entries have changed and t
On 1/29/07, Ray Stell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That said, probably, lasts gasps from a legacy system. I'm wondering
when ora will open up its code ala sun/solaris.
According to a recent Gartner study, Oracle has 48% market share (in other
words they are the market leader by a margin of 26%
Ray Stell wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:27:19PM -0800, Karen Hill wrote:
> > there any worry in the community that oracle will begin to target
> > postgres like they're targeting mySQL?
>
> I attended a big ora conference in 2006 and was a bit surprised to
> observe the fact that ora corp k
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:27:19PM -0800, Karen Hill wrote:
> there any worry in the community that oracle will begin to target
> postgres like they're targeting mySQL?
I attended a big ora conference in 2006 and was a bit surprised to
observe the fact that ora corp keynote addresses did not even
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/07 16:05, tom wrote:
> No.
> Postgres does not represent an economic entity that can compete for $$
> with Oracle.
>
> It's also not nearly as popular. And I mean that in a very pop-culture
> way.
> How long did it take Oracle to support Lin
> On Jan 29, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Karen Hill wrote:
>
> >I was just looking at all the upcoming features scheduled to make it
> >into 8.3, and with all those goodies, wouldn't it make sense for this
> >to be a 9.0 release instead of an 8.3? It looks like postgresql is
> >rapidly catching up to oracl
No.
Postgres does not represent an economic entity that can compete for $
$ with Oracle.
It's also not nearly as popular. And I mean that in a very pop-
culture way.
How long did it take Oracle to support Linux? Only when it became
"pop"ular to do so.
Who would they target anyways?
There
I was just looking at all the upcoming features scheduled to make it
into 8.3, and with all those goodies, wouldn't it make sense for this
to be a 9.0 release instead of an 8.3? It looks like postgresql is
rapidly catching up to oracle if 8.3 branch gets every feature
scheduled for it.
About
I was just looking at all the upcoming features scheduled to make it
into 8.3, and with all those goodies, wouldn't it make sense for this
to be a 9.0 release instead of an 8.3? It looks like postgresql is
rapidly catching up to oracle if 8.3 branch gets every feature
scheduled for it.
About
100 matches
Mail list logo
