I'm having some trouble installing `9.0.13`.
Compiling worked just fine. (The only flags used were `--prefix=/opt/pg9013
--with-perl`).
However after running bin/initdb, it fails:
The files belonging to this database system will be owned by user mobit.
This user must also own the server
Robert drb...@fatalsyntax.com writes:
I'm having some trouble installing `9.0.13`.
creating template1 database in /opt/pg9013/data/base/1 ... ok
initializing pg_authid ... FATAL: wrong number of index expressions
Our buildfarm member anchovy has been showing similar failures for
awhile, but
Robert drb...@fatalsyntax.com writes:
I'm having some trouble installing `9.0.13`.
creating template1 database in /opt/pg9013/data/base/1 ... ok
initializing pg_authid ... FATAL: wrong number of index expressions
Our buildfarm member anchovy has been showing similar failures for
awhile,
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Gavan Schneider pg-...@snkmail.com wrote:
On 3/4/13 at 1:49 PM, dix1wji...@sneakemail.com (Julian
tempura-at-internode.on.net |pg-gts/Basic|) wrote:
... having to really think it out is probably a good sign that you
should stick to a surrogate unless you are
Hi AllI'm trying to understand the implications of the latest security fix to postgresql [1].We have a setup were we in pg_hba.conf have limited the allowed IP addresses of the clients. But does anyone know ifCVE-2013-1899 allows an arbitrary attacker to use the exploits described in [1]?We are
Hi,
pg_hba.conf does not have protection for this security issue.
Regards, Devrim
mads.tand...@schneider-electric.com wrote:
Hi All
I'm trying to understand the implications of the latest security fix to
postgresql [1].
We have a setup were we in pg_hba.conf have limited the allowed IP
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 06:39:22PM +0200, mads.tand...@schneider-electric.com
wrote:
Hi All
I'm trying to understand the implications of the latest security fix to
postgresql [1].
We have a setup were we in pg_hba.conf have limited the allowed IP addresses
of
the clients. But does
On 4/3/2013 5:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
$ pg_restore -? ... -O, --no-owner skip restoration of object
ownership ... So there you have it. pg_restore just restored all the
objects (blobs and otherwise) as owned by the user running it. I
should think you'd have had issues with other things besides
Hi Bruce.Didn't catch that in the announcement.Thanks for clearing out the confusion.Best regards,Mads
Hello,
I have one query in my postgresql 9.2.3 that took 137 ms to me executed
and looking a way
what I can do to optimize it. I have one table generated numbers from 1
to 1 000 000 and
I need to get first free id, meanwhile id's when is taken can be free
(deleted data and id
is free for
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Condor con...@stz-bg.com wrote:
Hello,
I have one query in my postgresql 9.2.3 that took 137 ms to me executed and
looking a way
what I can do to optimize it. I have one table generated numbers from 1 to 1
000 000 and
I need to get first free id, meanwhile
On 2013-04-05 00:38, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Condor con...@stz-bg.com wrote:
Hello,
I have one query in my postgresql 9.2.3 that took 137 ms to me
executed and
looking a way
what I can do to optimize it. I have one table generated numbers from
1 to 1
000 000
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Condor con...@stz-bg.com wrote:
SELECT jobid FROM mytable WHERE valids = 0 ORDER BY id ASC LIMIT 1;
should return in zero time since btree indexes can optimize order by
expressions and the partial index will bypass having to wade through
the rows you don't
On 4/4/2013 2:49 PM, Condor wrote:
Your solution is work, but Im now a little confused. I has a index
CREATE INDEX ON mytable (valids) USING BTREE (valids) and the
query to find valids = 0 tooks 137 ms.
the query can't use that index, and the separate index on id at the same
time, it has to
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com writes:
problem is that you are looking for needles (valids = 0) in the
haystack. the problem wasn't really the order, but the fact that you
had to scan an arbitrary amount of rows before finding a candidate
record. so the partial index manages this problem
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com writes:
problem is that you are looking for needles (valids = 0) in the
haystack. the problem wasn't really the order, but the fact that you
had to scan an arbitrary amount of rows before
On 4/3/13, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
David Noel david.i.n...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/2/13, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
David Noel david.i.n...@gmail.com wrote:
'select * from pg_stat_activity' shows that the queries are not
waiting, and are in the idle state.
The
On 4/2/13, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
On 4/2/2013 3:35 PM, David Noel wrote:
The hardware is a Dell PowerEdge 1420, dual Xeon Nocona's, 3.2ghz,
16gb ram. The disks are 4 Kingston HyperX SATA3's attached to a
HighPoint RocketRAID 2721 controller, ZFS, RAID10.
.
On 4/3/13, Eduardo Morras emorr...@yahoo.es wrote:
a) Perhaps process are waiting to I/O, do you take zfs snapshots? How often?
It can limit your i/o performance. Check the output of #zpool iostat 5
b) Is the zpool ok? If one of the disks lags behind the others (because
hardware errors)
Not sure if this is a feature request or a bug report.
I'm trying to use Foreign Tables for a variety of things and it is useful to
have a foreign table which appears to be read/write.
Having set one up, I can select data from it. However, I can't insert, update
or delete.
No worries,
Try an index like:
create index yada on mytable (id) where valids=0;
then
select max(jobid) from mytable where valids=0;
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Condor con...@stz-bg.com wrote:
Hello,
I have one query in my postgresql 9.2.3 that took 137 ms to me executed
and looking a way
what
On 04/04/2013 04:28 PM, Robert Lefkowitz wrote:
Not sure if this is a feature request or a bug report.
I'm trying to use Foreign Tables for a variety of things and it is useful to
have a foreign table which appears to be read/write.
Having set one up, I can select data from it. However, I
I came across an issue that looks like a bug in COPY. There are many
similar posts, e.g.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13485030/strange-postgresql-value-too-long-for-type-character-varying500,
without a good unswer.
Simplified steps to reproduce the issue:
1. CREATE TABLE TEST (description
2013/4/5 Konstantin Izmailov pgf...@gmail.com:
I came across an issue that looks like a bug in COPY. There are many similar
posts, e.g.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13485030/strange-postgresql-value-too-long-for-type-character-varying500,
without a good unswer.
Simplified steps to
24 matches
Mail list logo
