On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm currently looking into a problem that a client is reporting that
pg_dump from 8.0.3 is 'skipping' one of their sequences ... I'm waiting
for more info, but am curious if anyone knows (or can think of?) any
re
Marc,
> I'm currently looking into a problem that a client is reporting that
> pg_dump from 8.0.3 is 'skipping' one of their sequences ... I'm waiting
> for more info, but am curious if anyone knows (or can think of?) any
> reason why this might happen? The only thing I can think of is that the
>
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm currently looking into a problem that a client is reporting that
> pg_dump from 8.0.3 is 'skipping' one of their sequences ... I'm waiting
> for more info, but am curious if anyone knows (or can think of?) any
> reason why this might happen?
I'm currently looking into a problem that a client is reporting that
pg_dump from 8.0.3 is 'skipping' one of their sequences ... I'm waiting
for more info, but am curious if anyone knows (or can think of?) any
reason why this might happen? The only thing I can think of is that the
sequence i
Hi,
Thanks a Lot, it works.
So when it was changed (use of postgresql=YES), because I1m still use the
old way, download sources from postgres mirros, compile and install.
Best Regards
Rodrigo
-Mensagem original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Em nome de Christopher
Kin
We've seen a couple of bug reports now about how domain constraints
aren't checked during input of a parameter that's been deduced to be
of a domain type, eg
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2005-07/msg9.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-07/msg00084.php
There's a
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think we should care too much about indexes. We can rebuild
> them...but losing heap sectors means *data loss*.
If you're so concerned about *data loss* then none of this will be
acceptable to you at all. We are talking about going from a system
t
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 09:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Having raised that objection, ISTM that checking for torn pages can be
> > accomplished reasonably well using a few rules...
>
> I have zero confidence in this; the fact that you can think of
> (incomp
Tom,
> Great. BTW, don't bother testing snapshots between 2005/07/05 2300 EDT
> and just now --- Bruce's full_page_writes patch introduced a large
> random negative component into the timing ...
Ach. Starting over, then.
--Josh
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
-
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:50:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I was just going to alter the docs on users to remove the SYSID part,
> > but I noticed there is nothing at all for roles ...
>
> Don't worry about it, will handle that as part of the roles
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Who is working on providing documentation for roles?
Nothing's been done as yet, but Stephen and I are definitely on the
hook to provide some.
> I was just going to alter the docs on users to remove the SYSID part,
> but I noticed there is nothing at a
* Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Who is working on providing documentation for roles?
>
> I was just going to alter the docs on users to remove the SYSID part,
> but I noticed there is nothing at all for roles ...
>
> _Is_ anybody working on it at all?
Just to put it out there, I'm
Hackers,
Who is working on providing documentation for roles?
I was just going to alter the docs on users to remove the SYSID part,
but I noticed there is nothing at all for roles ...
_Is_ anybody working on it at all?
--
Alvaro Herrera ()
"We are who we choose to be", sang the goldfinch
when
There, that should do it ...
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I just enabled teh RFC2369 stuff, which adds 'List-*' headers to the message
... apparently, that overrides the X-Mailing-List setting ...
What you want to check for is:
List-ID:
instead ... I'm going to look at ge
I just enabled teh RFC2369 stuff, which adds 'List-*' headers to the
message ... apparently, that overrides the X-Mailing-List setting ...
What you want to check for is:
List-ID:
instead ... I'm going to look at getting X-Mailing-List added back in
though ...
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, D'Arcy
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andrew - Supernews ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On 2005-07-07, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> * truncate is not MVCC-safe.
> > >
> > > Erm, that's why it gets a stronger lock, so I don't really see what
> > > this has to do wi
This list and all the other PostgreSQL lists suddenly started showing up
in my main mailbox instead of being sorted into my PG mailing list
folder. It turns out that the X-Mailing-List header that used to appear
in all messages has disappeared. Is this permanent or just a
misconfiguration that ca
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:03:57 -0400,
Darren Alcorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is a link that has a description. There is also a lot of
> examples (of syntax as well) on Oracle's website.
>
> http://www-db.stanford.edu/~ullman/fcdb/oracle/or-objects.html#nested
So they are permitting
The way I understand Nested Tables and Object Relational Databases,
they basically are a layer on top of any old RDBMS that adds ease for
the user. I personally believe in normalization theory I just don't
like implementing it to avoid JOIN syntax.
How difficult would it be to implement (fo
Here is a link that has a description. There is also a lot of
examples (of syntax as well) on Oracle's website.
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~ullman/fcdb/oracle/or-objects.html#nested
Darren
On Jul 8, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Darren Alcorn wrote:
I was
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But after falling back to template1, a version check could be made and
if running 8.1 or higher an error message could be displayed.
Once we're connected to template1, we might as well just use it ...
Agreed. In any ca
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Darren Alcorn wrote:
> I was interested as to if there were plans to develop SQL99 nested
> tables.
Could you give an example of SQL99 nested tables? It might help us who
don't know what the term stand for understand the issue. I've browsed
through (bur not fully read) sql99 m
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
We still don't know enough about the situation to know what a solution
might look like. Is the slowdown Josh is seeing due to the extra CPU
cost of the CRCs, or the extra I/O cost, or excessive locking of the
WAL-related data structures while we do this stuff
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there also a potential showstopper in the redo machinery? We work on
> the assumption that the post-checkpoint block is available in WAL as a
> before image. Redo for all actions merely replay the write action again
> onto the block. If we must reapply t
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But after falling back to template1, a version check could be made and
> if running 8.1 or higher an error message could be displayed.
Once we're connected to template1, we might as well just use it ...
regards, tom lane
-
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 23:44:44 -0400,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The thing that makes this slightly painful is that we can't tell what
> version we are dumping *from* until we've connected, and so we cannot
> automagically "do the right thing" here. I don't really see any other
>
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Andrew - Supernews ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> It's not MVCC-safe even with the AccessExclusive lock;
>
> > This seems like something which should probably be fixed,
>
> You've missed the point entirely: t
* Christopher Kings-Lynne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >There are other reasons for restricting it:
> > * truncate takes a much stronger lock than a plain delete does.
> > * truncate is not MVCC-safe.
> >
> >I don't really agree with the viewpoint that truncate is just a quick
> >DELETE, and so I d
* Christopher Kings-Lynne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm strongly in favour of this patch. I am currently in this situation:
>
> 1. Web db user runs as non-superuser, non-owner.
> 2. I have a table of a tens of thousands of rows that I must delete
> entirely and rebuild every day at least (pg_
On 7/7/05, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> One idea would be to just tie its behavior directly to fsync and remove
> the option completely (that was the original TODO), or we can adjust it
> so it doesn't have the same risks as fsync, or the same lack of failure
> reporting as fsync.
I wonder about one th
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 11:59 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> The point here is that fsync-off is only realistic for development
> > >> or playpen installations. You don't turn it off in a production
> > >> machine, and I can't se
>>> The point here is that fsync-off is only realistic for development
or
>>> playpen installations. You don't turn it off in a production
>>> machine, and I can't see that you'd turn off the full-page-write
>>> option either. So we have not solved anyone's performance problem.
>
>> Yes, thi
32 matches
Mail list logo
