Tom Lane writes:
Right. Portably was the key word in my comment (sorry for not
emphasizing this more clearly). The real problem here is how to know
what is the actual behavior of each platform? I'm certainly not
prepared to trust reading-between-the-lines-of-some-man-pages. And I
can't
Neil Conway said:
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 21:27, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
So what actually is the point of OIDs then?
My understanding is that they're used to uniquely identify entries in
system catalogs. If there's a good reason to make use of OIDs on user
tables, I can't see
If ever this happens, same should be considered for tables created via the
SELECT INTO statement. These are in many cases 'temporary' in nature and do
not need OIDs (while making much use of the OIDs counter).
Daniel
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
Ok guys, I propose that the new libpq diff and 2 source files which
i'll soon send to pgsql-patches is applied to the source. This diff is
a cleaned up version of the previous version with the wrapper
functions moved out into their own file and more comments added. Also
the use of crypt_r() has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
I have no problem with ads being put there, but they should load at
least as fast as the rest of the site. They do so currently, but not
always, it seems...
The ads are coming from another
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FTP is just over 800MB, plan for growth.
WEB is just over 90MB, can't tell you what to plan for there.
Sorry to be dense, but what time period is this for?
Any given day. It's disk space, not traffic.
On www/ftp.us I don't even notice the
On 13 Jan 2003 at 9:45, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FTP is just over 800MB, plan for growth.
WEB is just over 90MB, can't tell you what to plan for there.
Sorry to be dense, but what time period is this for?
Any given day. It's disk space,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:59:33AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Tom Lane writes:
Feel free to contribute some code.
I will, but unfortunately the damage has already been done...since I have to
support 7.3 anyway, fixing the above problem will actually make my life
harder, not
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
On 13 Jan 2003 at 9:45, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FTP is just over 800MB, plan for growth.
WEB is just over 90MB, can't tell you what to plan for there.
Sorry to be dense, but what time period
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 10:01:38AM -0500, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
On 13 Jan 2003 at 9:45, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FTP is just over 800MB, plan for growth.
WEB is just over 90MB, can't tell
Daniel Kalchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If ever this happens, same should be considered for tables created via the
SELECT INTO statement. These are in many cases 'temporary' in nature and do
not need OIDs (while making much use of the OIDs counter).
SELECT INTO does create tables without
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 10:01:38AM -0500, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
On 13 Jan 2003 at 9:45, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FTP is just over 800MB, plan
Hi!
I just came across a posting in this list, and a question arose from that
which I'm carrying for some time. PG has *some* views in the system catalog,
which make life easier, but some essential(?) things like 'list all tables in
DB' has to be done in a multi-table join with special
Joerg Hessdoerfer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PG has *some* views in the system catalog, which make life easier, but
some essential(?) things like 'list all tables in DB' has to be done
in a multi-table join with special attributes. What is the rationale
of that? Wouldn't it be easier (and more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
Wouldn't it be easier (and more portable, see 7.3/7.2 system catalogs vs.
psql) to have views for that? Do I miss a point here?
Putting the \d commands into views has been on the TODO list
-Original Message-
From: Ross J. Reedstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 13 January 2003 15:16
To: Vince Vielhaber
Cc: Dan Langille; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL site, put up or shut up?
And there was a statement upthread from someone (Marc?)
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 11:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
Wouldn't it be easier (and more portable, see 7.3/7.2 system catalogs vs.
psql) to have views for that? Do I miss a point here?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
Go back and reread the end of it. The first part was about the ads,
the second was about mirrors.
Sorry for the confusion: Dave is right, I just asked the question wrong.
I am not really
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:59:33AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I will, but unfortunately the damage has already been done...since I
have to
support 7.3 anyway, fixing the above problem will actually make my life
harder, not easier...
Another issue to consider is that when a
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ross J. Reedstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 13 January 2003 15:16
To: Vince Vielhaber
Cc: Dan Langille; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL site, put up or shut up?
And there was a
-Original Message-
From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 13 January 2003 15:42
To: Dave Page
Cc: Ross J. Reedstrom; Dan Langille; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL site, put up or shut up?
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
Total Hits
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 11:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
Wouldn't it be easier (and more portable, see 7.3/7.2 system catalogs vs.
psql) to have views for that? Do I miss a point here?
Oh!
That's an excellent idea. Seemingly addresses the issue and has
value-add. I'm not aware of any gotchas here. Is there something that
is being overlooked?
Greg
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 14:50, Robert Treat wrote:
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 11:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 10:47, Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 13 January 2003 15:42
To: Dave Page
Cc: Ross J. Reedstrom; Dan Langille; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL site, put up or shut up?
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
Total Hits 1339547
Total Files 1064536
Total Pages 324346
Total Visits 58178
Total KBytes 2712883
In other words, 2.7Gb in 8/9 days.
I'm not sure I'd call that noise :-)
It's
-Original Message-
From: Greg Copeland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 13 January 2003 20:56
To: Robert Treat
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] \d type queries - why not views in
system catalog?!?
Oh!
That's an excellent
Views or C-functions, I think the idea is excellent. It's the concept
that I really like.
Greg
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Greg Copeland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 13 January 2003 20:56
To: Robert Treat
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
You have to do it in functions because some of the \ commands use
multiple queries and logic inside the C code.
Robert Treat
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 16:42, Greg Copeland wrote:
Views or C-functions, I think the idea is excellent. It's the concept
that I really like.
Greg
On Mon,
Robert Treat kirjutas T, 14.01.2003 kell 01:50:
One of the reasons that this
was not feasible in the past was that we needed functions that could
return multiple rows and columns easily. Now that we have that in 7.3,
it might be worth revisiting.
Also, we have schemas now, so it would be
Often I need to remove a user and cede their permissions to someone else.
How about something like this:
DROP USER blah PERMISSIONS TO chriskl;
or maybe
GRANT ALL USER blah TO chriskl;
???
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9'
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 21:40, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Often I need to remove a user and cede their permissions to someone else.
How about something like this:
DROP USER blah PERMISSIONS TO chriskl;
If you check that it's a superuser doing the drop, this would be good.
However, what
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 21:40, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Often I need to remove a user and cede their permissions to
someone else.
How about something like this:
DROP USER blah PERMISSIONS TO chriskl;
If you check that it's a superuser doing the drop, this would be good.
However,
Yeah good point...it wouldn't bother me if it were just current database,
except that then it wouldn't be useful to use the DROP USER command. ALTER
USER or GRANT would be better.
How do you ALTER USER ... after they've been dropped?
BTW Rod, I now get all your emails just fine (not as
Yeah good point...it wouldn't bother me if it were just current
database,
except that then it wouldn't be useful to use the DROP USER
command. ALTER
USER or GRANT would be better.
How do you ALTER USER ... after they've been dropped?
No, I mean that we don't drop the user. You go:
Robert Treat writes:
One idea I've always thought would be nice would be to make full fledged
C functions out of the \ commands and ship them with the database.
The psql meta-commands are not a nicely designed set of queries that one
would encapsulate into a public library interface. They are
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, I mean that we don't drop the user. You go:
ALTER USER chriskl COPY PERMISSIONS FROM blah;
That seems cleaner to me than the DROP thingy.
You could only easily implement this in the current database --- but
since it's not a DROP, one could
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, I mean that we don't drop the user. You go:
ALTER USER chriskl COPY PERMISSIONS FROM blah;
That seems cleaner to me than the DROP thingy.
You could only easily implement this in the current database --- but
since it's not a DROP, one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Area902.Com is a Free Service provided by Hub.Org Networking Services
Because hub.org is also displaying the postgresql.org page on the same subnet,
so the disparity should in theory be quite controllable. *If* we are going
to keep the ads (and my vote is a strong
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Treat writes:
One idea I've always thought would be nice would be to make full fledged
C functions out of the \ commands and ship them with the database.
The psql meta-commands are not a nicely designed set of queries that one
would
What should we do with the TODO item? Add question mark? Remove?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Treat writes:
One idea I've always thought would be nice would be to make full
What about querying the information_schema?
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Treat
Sent: Tuesday, 14 January 2003 6:01 AM
To: Greg Copeland
Cc: Dave Page; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List
Subject: Re:
Jeremy,
This appears to be a bug in the database. I have been able to
reproduce. It appears that the new 'autocommit' functionality in 7.3
has a problem.
The jdbc driver is essentially issuing the following sql in your example:
set autocommit = off; -- result of the setAutoCommit(false)
42 matches
Mail list logo
