The 9th edition of the Italian PostgreSQL Day ( PGDay.it 2015 ) will be
held on Friday , 23th October 2015 in Prato, Italy.
The International Call for Papers has opened and will close on 8th August
2015.
For more information about the conference and the International Call for
Paper, please visit
2014-08-01 18:20 GMT+02:00 Claudio Freire klaussfre...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
c) the map is not crash safe by design, because it needs only for
incremental backup to track what blocks needs to be backuped, not for
consistency
2014-07-31 8:26 GMT+02:00 Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 7:00 PM, desmodemone desmodem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
I think it's very useful an incremental/differential backup
method, by the way
the method has two drawbacks:
1) In a database
2014-07-29 18:35 GMT+02:00 Marco Nenciarini marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it
:
Il 25/07/14 20:44, Robert Haas ha scritto:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Claudio Freire klaussfre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Marco Nenciarini
marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
2013/12/9 knizhnik knizh...@garret.ru
Hello!
I want to annouce my implementation of In-Memory Columnar Store extension
for PostgreSQL:
Documentation: http://www.garret.ru/imcs/user_guide.html
Sources: http://www.garret.ru/imcs-1.01.tar.gz
Any feedbacks, bug reports and
Hi all,
I see a strange behavior ( for me ) on 9.2 (but seems the same on
9.1 and 9.3) of the optimizer on query like that :
/* create a table with random data and 2 rows */
create table test1 ( id int not null primary key, state1 int not null
default 0, state2 int not null
Hello Jim,
I think you not have other possibilities if the archives are
corrupted and there are no possibilities to restore it,
you need to recreate the standby starting from a base backup.
Kind Regards
2011/12/1 Jim Buttafuoco j...@contacttelecom.com
Simon,
What do you mean,
2011/10/22 Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de
On Friday, October 21, 2011 08:14:12 PM Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I
a patch.
Regards, Mat
2011/10/18 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM, desmodemone desmodem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Seems an Oracle bug not Postgresql one!
I don't think it's a bug for it to work. It'd probably work in
PostgreSQL too, if you inserted (2) first
2011/10/18 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM, desmodemone desmodem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Seems an Oracle bug not Postgresql one!
I don't think it's a bug for it to work. It'd probably work in
PostgreSQL too, if you inserted (2) first and then (1). It's just
Hello there,
two guys of our developer team ( Lorenzo and Federico )
have seen a strange behaviour (in 8.4 and 9.1.1 ) on update, and I think is
a bug or something really strange or I not understand correctly this
behavior .
I explain now ( begin transaction or auto commit is
add primary key(a) DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE ;
update testup set a=a+1 ;
UPDATE 2
commit;
Seems an Oracle bug not Postgresql one!
Regards, Mat
2011/10/18 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
desmodemone desmodem...@gmail.com writes:
create table testup ( a int ) ;
alter table testup add
12 matches
Mail list logo