-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
As few minutes ago, I received an e-mail about dumping multiples tables at
once, like:
pg_dump dbname -t table1 -t table2 -t table3 -f mytables.pgdump
pg_dump doesn't support such a syntax, so we ran pg_dump in a for loop to
dump multiple
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
I made a patch for this last fall against the 7.4 sources, and I think Bruce
added it to his unapplied patches list. I think we should get this in for
7.5.
Ok, I've seen it now:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 10:57:45AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
otherwise. I already get 2-4 warnings whenever creating a new table due to
keys, etc. I don't read them anymore unless one of them is an ERROR, and I
suspect that a lot of DBAs are the same.
I can second that. At least, I don't
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
[ PGP not available, raw data follows ]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
I made a patch for this last fall against the 7.4 sources, and I think Bruce
added it to his unapplied patches list. I
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
Hi,
I was thinking other way round. What if we write to WAL pages only to those
portions which we need to modify and let kernel do the job the way it sees fit?
What will happen if it fails?
So you are saying only write the part of the page that we modify? I
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Our current WAL implementation writes copies of full pages to WAL before
modifying the page on disk. This is done to prevent partial pages from
being corrupted in case the operating system crashes during a page
write.
InnoDB uses a doublebuffer system instead.
psql dbname can still connect but when I go to the pg_database table the
db is not there as a result I cannot do a pg_dump on it?
I tried forcing an entry into pg_database but it won't allow me to set
the oid ?
Dave
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
---(end
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's not true all the time, but I know 90% of my case statements are of this
form. In some ideal world postgres would recognize this form and handle it
specially using some kind of quick hash table lookup.
I don't see how to reconcile that with
[moving to hackers]
Line 681 is this:
sprintf(logbuffer, dbname: %s Username %s Passwd %s,
dbi-dbname, dbi-username, dbi-password);
It appears that dbi-password is a null pointer:
(gdb) print dbi-dbname
$1 = 0x25f68 template1
(gdb) print dbi-username
$2 =
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
I can not see why writing an 8K block is any more safe than writing just the
changes.
I may be dead wrong but just putting my thoughts together..
The problem is that we need to record what was on the page
Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
psql dbname can still connect but when I go to the pg_database table the
db is not there as a result I cannot do a pg_dump on it?
Hm, it doesn't make a lot of sense that fresh connections would still
succeed if the pg_database row is deleted, but ...
I
Added to TODO:
* Allow pg_dumpall to use non-text output formats
---
Philip Warner wrote:
At 11:12 AM 16/03/2004, Tom Lane wrote:
That seems like it would complicate both pg_dump and pg_restore unduly.
I'd
Tom == Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom The idea I was toying with is to generate, not x = y with
Tom repeated copies of x, but placeholder = y where placeholder
Tom is a dummy expression tree node. Then at runtime, the CASE
Tom code would evaluate the test expression once
Tom,
Thanks, first of all it wasn't my mess, but someone elses.
Secondly this worked however I was unable to use the same name, some
remnants of the old database must have remained in pg_database.
I couldn't even reindex it with postgres -O -P
Dave
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 11:11, Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Secondly this worked however I was unable to use the same name, some
remnants of the old database must have remained in pg_database.
I couldn't even reindex it with postgres -O -P
Interesting. I wonder what state the old tuple is really in ...
Could you
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I'll stress again - I don't mind doing all the work associated with any
once of the above choices. All I'm asking is that we agree on which one
will be best for this project. As far as I'm concerned, Choice 2
involves the least amount of work, but I think Choice 1 will
Dear Hackers,
We are having really hard times with the PostgreSQL spanish list
hosted here in México, mainly because the lack of
administration. That's really sad since we are a well established and
growing community. So, we would like to know if it's possible that the
list is hosted by
Try doing a vacuum full on template1 and restart the database. I've had
to do this before after renaming a database via the system catalogs.
Robert Treat
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 12:05, Dave Cramer wrote:
Tom,
Thanks, first of all it wasn't my mess, but someone elses.
Secondly this worked
Joe Conway wrote:
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I'll stress again - I don't mind doing all the work associated with
any once of the above choices. All I'm asking is that we agree on
which one will be best for this project. As far as I'm concerned,
Choice 2 involves the least amount of work, but I
I\'m currently searching for a topic related to PostgreSQL for a student research
project
i have to write this semester.
Since i really would like to write this in a PostgreSQL context and there are
many ongoing projects here on -hackers, i wonder if somebody has a topic
of kind \that needs
http://developer.postgresql.org/todo.php
Gavin
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Without looking at the actual data, it seems like
PhonyHeapTupleSatisfiesNow() in GetRawDatabaseInfo() might be to blame.
That was my theory too, but having looked at the tuple, it's perfectly
valid. However, it appears that its xmin is way in the past,
Tom Lane wrote:
Max Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to call plpgsql functions from c functions directly through
the Oid, but i have a problem: it seems that the plpgsql interpreter
calls SPI_connect and fails even if the caller has already
spi-connected.
This is a safety
On Tuesday 16 March 2004 02:14 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I\'m currently searching for a topic related to PostgreSQL for a student
research project i have to write this semester.
Since i really would like to write this in a PostgreSQL context and
there are many ongoing projects here on
I've been playing with the backend code and it is finally starting to make
sense. I've discovered the wonders that lie in StringInfo, List and
FastList, and suddenly, it's all starting to make sense. I must say, the
core of PostgreSQL really is Lisp, and I think that's what makes it rock so
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
I've been playing with the backend code and it is finally starting to make
sense. I've discovered the wonders that lie in StringInfo, List and
FastList, and suddenly, it's all starting to make sense. I must say, the
core of PostgreSQL really is Lisp, and I think
Thanks, first of all it wasn't my mess, but someone elses.
Secondly this worked however I was unable to use the same name, some
remnants of the old database must have remained in pg_database.
I couldn't even reindex it with postgres -O -P
Maybe try a full dump and reload now?
Chris
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 16 March 2004 5:56 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
I'll start posting the documentation I am generating to my vanity
site (announcements later), but would this be something that the
postgresql.org main site would be
Tom,
Isn't this already solved by dumping in dependency order?
regards, tom lane
Nope. Problem is, the table depends on the function, and the function
depends on the table. pg_dump (in 7.4.1, at least) will dump the table
first, *with the constraint*, and then the
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Isn't this already solved by dumping in dependency order?
Nope. Problem is, the table depends on the function, and the function
depends on the table. pg_dump (in 7.4.1, at least) will dump the table
first, *with the constraint*, and then the
Here is more detail on the patch.
---
Manfred Koizar wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:02:54 -0500 (EST), Bruce Momjian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if it doesn't
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where are we on this? It seems like a win to me.
I thought it was a bad idea, although I no longer remember the details.
If I remember correctly, you didn't like the index routines reading the
tuple information, or something like
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I remember correctly, you didn't like the index routines reading the
tuple information, or something like that, but there was a performance
benefit for duplicate keys, so I think we should re-investigate this.
I don't see the actual patch either in
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I remember correctly, you didn't like the index routines reading the
tuple information, or something like that, but there was a performance
benefit for duplicate keys, so I think we should re-investigate this.
I don't see the
34 matches
Mail list logo
