On 14 January 2016 at 03:48, David Grelaud wrote:
> 3) Always avoid nested-loop join when no indexes are available?
>
> Tom Lane said "There might be some cases where this would help, but there
> would be many more where it would be useless or counterproductive."
> Who is right between Tom Lane a
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:10:15PM -0800, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 01/13/2016 11:38 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > create table parent (
> > not_null_in_parent integer not null
> > );
> >
> > create table child() inherits (parent);
> > alter table child
> >
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 03:32:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Karsten Hilbert writes:
> > create table parent (
> > not_null_in_parent integer not null
> > );
>
> > create table child() inherits (parent);
> > alter table child
> > alter column not_null_in_p
Hi all, I am relatively new to Postgres but after some some work
master/slave replication and failover working.
I can use a trigger file to promote my first slave to a new master but
where I am confused (from reading various docs) is quite how the second,
third and so on slaves know there is a new
Steven Livingstone wrote:
> Hi all, I am relatively new to Postgres but after some some work master/slave
> replication and failover working.
>
> I can use a trigger file to promote my first slave to a new master but where I
> am confused (from reading various docs) is quite how the second, thir
Thanks Andreas - that looks ideal.
Steven Livingstone wrote:
> Hi all, I am relatively new to Postgres but after some some work master/slave
> replication and failover working.
>
> I can use a trigger file to promote my first slave to a new master but where I
> am confused (from reading various
Sachin Srivastava wrote:
> In my function the problem is that global variables defined inside the
> function.
> These variables are visible to functions defined inside a function.
> If we move these inner functions to outside of the main function,
> they will lose the visibility of the global vari
David Rowley writes:
> Perhaps separating out enable_nestloop so that it only disables
> non-parameterised nested loops, and add another GUC for parameterised
> nested loops would be a good thing to do. Likely setting enable_nestloop to
> off in production would be a slightly easier decision to ma
On 01/13/2016 06:00 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
Whether or not it is a foregone conclusion that this community will
adopt a CoC, it seems like a mailing list is not the place to do
revision control. Can you people start a github project or something to
develope your ideas and come back when you have
On 01/14/2016 12:59 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:10:15PM -0800, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 01/13/2016 11:38 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
create table parent (
not_null_in_parent integer not null
);
create table child() inherits (pa
On 01/13/2016 12:18 PM, Roland van Laar wrote:
Hello,
I want to exclude all bdr data from a database dump.
My command is:
$ bdr_dump -Fp -h localhost -U postgres mydb -f /tmp/mydb.data
--data-only --exclude-table='bdr*
This results in bdr data being included.
Did you mean excluded above?
On 01/14/2016 08:24 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 01/13/2016 06:00 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
Whether or not it is a foregone conclusion that this community will
adopt a CoC, it seems like a mailing list is not the place to do
revision control. Can you people start a github project or something to
Updated.
Tl;dr;
* Removed excess wording
* Removed non-.org controlled spaces in first paragraph
* Added explicit discussion on explicit problem with last paragraph of
Kevin's last version.
== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==
This document is intended to provide community gui
On 01/14/2016 08:30 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 01/14/2016 08:24 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 01/13/2016 06:00 PM, Berend Tober wrote:
Whether or not it is a foregone conclusion that this community will
adopt a CoC, it seems like a mailing list is not the place to do
revision control. Can you
On 14 January 2016 at 16:37, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues
> a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that.
I completely agree with you, unfortunately there are enough people who
are so militant about their particula
On 01/14/2016 08:53 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
On 14 January 2016 at 16:37, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues
a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that.
I completely agree with you, unfortunately there are enough pe
> On Jan 14, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> Now, how does this apply (as an example)? There are very loud people in this
> community who are pro-gay marriage and they are unable to respect those who
> don't agree with the position. There are also those who are anti-gay marriage
On 01/14/2016 09:14 AM, Neil wrote:
The community needs to decide between the following:
1. Does it want to eliminate participation from people with strong but opposing
views.
or
2. Does it want to enforce respect and tolerance that allows people with strong
but opposing views to contribute
On 14 January 2016 at 17:11, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Right but here is the rub. Being anti-gay marriage isn't an extreme opinion.
> It is a minority opinion for sure but it is certainly not extreme.
Well it is - it's an extremity in the range of potential view points.
> Another issue, consider
tl;dr;
* added being tolerant of opposing views
== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==
This document is intended to provide community guidelines for
creating and enforcing a safe, respectful, productive, and
collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute in
a safe, r
On 01/14/2016 09:11 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 01/14/2016 08:53 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
On 14 January 2016 at 16:37, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues
a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that.
I completely a
On 01/14/2016 09:53 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 14 January 2016 at 16:37, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> If someone stands up in a respectful way in a public place and argues
>> a position, they should not be demonized or punished for that.
I am not a contributor to Postgresql (tho I have contribut
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
> Updated.
>
> Tl;dr;
>
> * Removed excess wording
> * Removed non-.org controlled spaces in first paragraph
> * Added explicit discussion on explicit problem with last paragraph of
> Kevin's last version.
>
> == PostgreSQL Community Code
hello ,
I am trying to setup 2 -node bdr group. i have 5 databases in node 1. i
created groups for each db in node-1. then did pg_basebackup from node -2
and started bdr_init_copy. Its giving below error.
*bdr_init_copy*
bdr_init_copy: starting ...
Getting remote server identification ...
Dete
Hi all.
This is not doing as I'd expected:
select regexp_replace('71.09.6.01.3', '(\d)[.-](\d)', '\1\2', 'g');
regexp_replace
71096.013
(1 row)
It acts the same with dashes:
select regexp_replace('71-09-6-01-3', '(\d)[.-](\d)', '\1\2', 'g');
regexp_replace
Andy Colson writes:
> This is not doing as I'd expected:
> select regexp_replace('71.09.6.01.3', '(\d)[.-](\d)', '\1\2', 'g');
> regexp_replace
>
> 71096.013
> (1 row)
I think regexp_replace considers only non-overlapping substrings,
eg, once it's replaced 1.0 with 10, it t
How about:
select regexp_replace('71.09.6.01.3', '(\d)[.-]', '\1', 'g');
?
In your example, the (\d)[.-](\d) says find a digit followed by a period or
dash followed by another digit. The first time through 1.0 is matched and
replaced with 10 (710) with the "current location" pointing before the
On 1/14/2016 1:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andy Colson writes:
This is not doing as I'd expected:
select regexp_replace('71.09.6.01.3', '(\d)[.-](\d)', '\1\2', 'g');
regexp_replace
71096.013
(1 row)
I think regexp_replace considers only non-overlapping substrings,
eg,
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> This is not doing as I'd expected:
>
> select regexp_replace('71.09.6.01.3', '(\d)[.-](\d)', '\1\2', 'g');
>
> regexp_replace
>
> 71096.013
> (1 row)
>
>
Solution: select regexp_replace('71.09.6.01.3', '(\d)[.-
On 1/14/2016 2:02 PM, John McKown wrote:
How about:
select regexp_replace('71.09.6.01.3', '(\d)[.-]', '\1', 'g');
match is 1.3 and result is 13 ( 71096.013). If you don't want to
eliminate the period or dash unless it is _between_ two digits, try:
select regexp_replace('71.09.6.01.3', '(\d)[.-
On 1/14/2016 2:06 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
select regexp_replace('71.09.6.01.3', '(\d)[.-](?=\d)', '\1\2', 'g');
Thanks David!
-Andy
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-genera
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
> On 1/14/2016 2:06 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
>> select regexp_replace('71.09.6.01.3', '(\d)[.-](?=\d)', '\1\2', 'g');
>>
>
John already picked up on the fact that the "\2" in the replacement is
pointless (neither helping nor hurting) sin
Please excuse my mistake.
We were dropping a view that had the trigger on it beforehand, then in
trying to re-build the entire schema had scripts that attempted to drop
trigger if they existed before re-creating the view and triggers. I
over-sanitized the example I posted and made it unclear.
I
On 13/01/2016, at 3:30 PM, Saulo Merlo wrote:
So.. I have a Query that is taking too long to complete.
OLD QUERY:
SELECT file.inode_idAS file_id, file.parent_inode_id AS file_group,
file.relative_path AS file_type, file.file_data AS file_binary,
file.node_full_path AS
Hello,
I posted this earlier but ended up breaking my own silly rev scheme. So,
I am going back to my silly rev scheme. Rev 6 it is:
tl;dr;
* added being tolerant of opposing views
* Removed excess wording from Grittner's version
* Removed non-.org controlled spaces in first paragraph
==
On 01/14/2016 01:47 PM, Williamson, Michael wrote:
Please excuse my mistake.
We were dropping a view that had the trigger on it beforehand, then in
trying to re-build the entire schema had scripts that attempted to drop
trigger if they existed before re-creating the view and triggers. I
over-sa
Folks,
The CFP is open for this, it can be found here:
http://linuxfestnorthwest.org/2016/present
As usual, we have a dedicated track to PostgreSQL. We however tend to
lack topics of the intro variety. It would be great if we could get some
folks to submit talks on:
PostgreSQL 101: How to g
On 15 January 2016 at 04:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
> > Perhaps separating out enable_nestloop so that it only disables
> > non-parameterised nested loops, and add another GUC for parameterised
> > nested loops would be a good thing to do. Likely setting enable_nestloop
> to
> >
Please see my two suggestions below.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
To: "Neil" ; "Psql_General (E-mail)"
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V6
Hello,
I posted this earlier but ended up breaking my own silly rev scheme.
S
39 matches
Mail list logo
