On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 08:33:42PM -0430, Werner Echezuria wrote:
Well, I do a query like this: SELECT * FROM historial WHERE
id_grupo=grupo_hist ORDER BY grmemb LIMIT 10;, then in transformSortClause
I know it this way:
Ok, this is way over my head. But really, it would be helpful to know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 11:54:55AM +0100, Sam Halliday wrote:
On 26 Apr 2009, at 07:05, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
- a single psql server can autonomously start up and serve connection
requests (this cannot be done with encrypted disc)
Sure it can
Postgresql 8.4 beta1 does not compile in win-XP3 because of the
already reported bug (#4662)
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2009-04/msg00142.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-11/msg00367.php
The patch mentioned in those posts fixed the problem for me
Hernán J.
Not looking for a Windows solution. Must be cross platform and work
for headless machines, laptops and desktops. Encrypted drive solutions
fall short of these requirements. Other considerations which rule out
encrypted drives have been discussed earlier in the thread.
For the record, I
Tomas Zerolo wrote:
If there were a way to prompt the user for the password to an encrypted
drive on startup for all OS, with an equivalent for headless machines...
There definitely is. We even need more flexibility: prompt for
credentials at the time of *mounting* a secured partition
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:28:45AM -0700, Sam Halliday wrote:
Tomas Zerolo wrote:
If there were a way to prompt the user for the password to an encrypted
drive on startup for all OS, with an equivalent for headless machines...
There is a difference between it's possible and there is.
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
It's not safe to write WAL after the checkpoint, as RequestXLogSwitch()
does. After restart, the system will start inserting WAL from the checkpoint
redo point, which is just before
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
It's not safe to write WAL after the checkpoint, as RequestXLogSwitch()
does. After restart, the system will start inserting WAL from the checkpoint
redo point, which is just before the
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
It's not safe to write WAL after the checkpoint, as RequestXLogSwitch()
does.
Well, I'm in a project called PostgreSQLf and we're trying to include fuzzy
logic inside PostgreSQL. Now I've been thinking this is getting too hard, do
you know if I can just sort the results with something like this :
Sort(ResultSlot,column)?, I mean without the Order By clause?
2009/4/28
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:24:55AM +0100, Sam Halliday wrote:
Not looking for a Windows solution. Must be cross platform and work
for headless machines, laptops and desktops. Encrypted drive solutions
fall short of these requirements. Other considerations which rule out
encrypted drives
Fujii Masao wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
It's not safe to write WAL after the checkpoint, as
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Heikki
Hi,
Thanks for the report!
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:54 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
niranja...@nsn.com wrote:
Upon applying synchronous replication patch and subsequent compilation
of psqlODBC sources will lead to compilation errors.
As a workaround users can compile the psqlODBC
On 27 Apr 2009, at 13:55, Sam Mason wrote:
Allowing multiple users/encryption keys access the same database seems
problematic; how would you allow catalogue access and enforce unique
or
other constraints if the server couldn't look to see what's there.
Not
sure what you're after here
Werner Echezuria werc...@gmail.com writes:
Later in planner.c on grouping_planner function I do something like this:
Well, you've omitted showing us the code where the problem is likely to
be, but I am kinda thinking that you've shot yourself in the foot by
trying to represent your special
David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:42:31PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It also seems like we're missing tab completion support for this.
Oops. Working on that now.
Any luck with this?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL
Anton Egorov escribió:
Hi!
I need to recover deleted rows from table. After I delete those rows I
stopped postgres immediately and create tar archive of database. I found
solution http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-03/msg00965.php,
but is there another (easyer) way to do it?
hi,
I want to attach to acced the shared memory
therefore I must attaches oneself it
but how do?
thanks
I notice this has gone unremarked
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/22/oracle_ibm_enterprisedb_compatibility/
Looking at the IBM DB2 press release
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/27279.wss
shows this quote
EnterpriseDB, another IBM business partner, was a contributor to
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Anton Egorov escribió:
I need to recover deleted rows from table. After I delete those rows I
stopped postgres immediately and create tar archive of database. I found
solution http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-03/msg00965.php,
2009/4/28 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Well, you've omitted showing us the code where the problem is likely to
be, but I am kinda thinking that you've shot yourself in the foot by
trying to represent your special ordering clause as a simple constant.
The planner is quite smart enough to throw
I think Sam Mason's proposal of hacking pg-pool sounds feasible. Is
there any way to create a formal RFE for this? Is anybody interested
in implementing this?
On 27 Apr 2009, at 13:55, Sam Mason wrote:
One possible arrangement would be if each user/encryption key had its
own database
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:39:33AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:42:31PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It also seems like we're missing tab completion support for this.
Oops. Working on that now.
Any luck with this?
I have a handle on
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
I have a handle on the problem, which is that the tab completion code
assumes, wrongly, that it only needs to deal with fixed strings. It's
actually been false for some time in the \div case, for example. The
S option has shattered the fixed-string
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:11:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
I have a handle on the problem, which is that the tab completion
code assumes, wrongly, that it only needs to deal with fixed
strings. It's actually been false for some time in the \div case,
David Fetter wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:11:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
It seems like rather a large change to be making in beta. Can you
make a small patch that fixes the immediate problem, and leave the
refactoring for 8.5?
The hack I've come up with short of the refactor is to
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 16:17 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
I notice this has gone unremarked
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/22/oracle_ibm_enterprisedb_compatibility/
Looking at the IBM DB2 press release
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/27279.wss
shows this quote
Why would
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:31:11PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:11:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
It seems like rather a large change to be making in beta. Can
you make a small patch that fixes the immediate problem, and
leave the
David Fetter wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:31:11PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tab completion has never been perfect. I don't think beta is the
best time to be improving it so much. I think a small patch that
just adds \dfa, \dfw and appropriate pattern completions (i.e.
it lists
Hello
I am thinking about global temp tables. One possible solution is
creating global temporary table like normal table and in planner stage
check using this table. When some global temporary table is detected,
then real temporary table is created and used in execution plan. It's
like:
CREATE
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
I am thinking about global temp tables.
These would have some value to us.
In case anyone doesn't know, this is a feature in the SQL standard.
You have a permanent definition of the schema, but the table is
materialized as a temporary table on
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
I am thinking about global temp tables.
These would have some value to us.
In case anyone doesn't know, this is a feature in the SQL standard.
You have a permanent definition of the schema, but the table is
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Or perhaps Pavel doesn't really mean global as the term is used
in Postgres (c.f. the pg_database table)?
I'd bet that he doesn't. He's taking terminology from the standard,
where it means not limited to one SQL-client module. It just means
it is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 27, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
I am thinking about global temp tables. One possible solution is
creating global temporary table like normal table and in planner stage
check
Hi,
Le 27 avr. 09 à 23:32, A.M. a écrit :
When will postgresql offer global temporary tables with data which
are shared among sessions? Such tables are great for transient data
such as web session data where writing to the WAL is a waste. (On DB
startup, the tables would simply be empty.)
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
No, no crash is involved. Just a normal server shutdown and start:
1. Server shutdown is initiated
2. A shutdown checkpoint is recorded at XLOG point 1234, redo ptr is
also 1234.
3. A XLOG_SWITCH record is written at 1235, right after the checkpoint
record.
4. The
A.M. age...@themactionfaction.com wrote:
When will postgresql offer global temporary tables with data
which are shared among sessions?
Well, that would certainly be far different from what the standard
calls a temporary table of any flavor. In the standard all temporary
tables are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 27, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Hi,
Le 27 avr. 09 à 23:32, A.M. a écrit :
When will postgresql offer global temporary tables with data
which are shared among sessions? Such tables are great for
transient data such as web
A.M. age...@themactionfaction.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Le 27 avr. 09 à 23:32, A.M. a écrit :
When will postgresql offer global temporary tables with data
which are shared among sessions? Such tables are great for
transient data such as web session
On Apr 27, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
A.M. age...@themactionfaction.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Le 27 avr. 09 à 23:32, A.M. a écrit :
When will postgresql offer global temporary tables with data
which are shared among sessions? Such tables
2009/4/27 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
I am thinking about global temp tables.
These would have some value to us.
In case anyone doesn't know, this is a feature in the SQL standard. You
have a permanent
2009/4/28 Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov:
A.M. age...@themactionfaction.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Le 27 avr. 09 à 23:32, A.M. a écrit :
When will postgresql offer global temporary tables with data
which are shared among sessions? Such tables
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:28:45AM -0700, Sam Halliday wrote:
Tomas Zerolo wrote:
If there were a way to prompt the user for the password to an encrypted
drive on startup for all OS, with an equivalent for headless machines...
[...]
Andreas Pflug wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
No, no crash is involved. Just a normal server shutdown and start:
1. Server shutdown is initiated
2. A shutdown checkpoint is recorded at XLOG point 1234, redo ptr is
also 1234.
3. A XLOG_SWITCH record is written at 1235, right after the
Hi.
I found the current planner doesn't care about lossy mode on Bitmap Scan.
I think costs of following two plans are equal now.
(a) Having enough work_mem = normal Bitmap Scan.
(b) Having less work_mem than estimated rows = Bitmap Scan with lossy mode.
Slower than (a).
So, sometimes the
higepon hige...@gmail.com wrote:
I found the current planner doesn't care about lossy mode on Bitmap Scan.
Good point. I saw the bad behavior on DBT-3 (TPC-H) benchmark before.
Loss-less bitmap scan was faster than seq Scan,
but lossy bitmap scan was slower than seq Scan:
EXPLAIN ANALYZE
47 matches
Mail list logo
