On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 14:04:56 +0200,
Petro Pelekh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So my database doesn't have pg_namespace system catalog, and doesn't
understand such pg_catalog.pg_class c, but understand pg_class c. May be
some of you have such problems with postgres and can help.
It looks
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 20:08:41 -0500,
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The time from release 7.3 to release 7.4 was 355 days, an all-time
high. We really need to shorten that.
Why is that?
End users will find it useful.
I started using
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:15:20 -0500,
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't believe it's possible, currently, to correctly import this
data with copy. I'm not sure the date fields would even be accepted
as date fields. It'd be nice if this could be made to work. From a
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 16:54:54 -0500,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, we'd like the optimizer to transform
(a AND b) OR (a AND c)
to
a AND (b OR c)
Currently, this is accomplished by the roundabout method of converting
the WHERE clause to CNF (AND-of-ORs)
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 18:39:20 -0500,
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/*
* If the user writes both DISTINCT ON and ORDER BY, then the
* two expression lists must match (until one or the other
* runs out). Otherwise the ORDER
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 18:09:33 -0500,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was discussed before --- see the archives. I believe the
conclusion was that the results would actually be nondeterministic
if we used two sort steps (that's what the code comment means by
rather
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 22:17:35 -0500,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the sort used to select the records sorts on both the distinct
expressions and the order by expressions you will get a sensible
deterministic result.
Sensible in what
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 06:14:59 -0600,
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doing things as above is pretty much the same as normal distinct on
for purposes of which rows get selected. Of the possible rows that
might get returned for a specific set of values from the distinct
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 13:41:32 +0500,
Jean-Eric Cuendet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I use PgSql for a lot of our company's need and I lack some features.
I would like to know if there is plans to implement:
- User permissions based on columns? (Ex: User1 has Select on Column CompayName
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 06:58:37 +0100,
Dennis Björklund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ps I've just changed my email name to my real name which is Dennis
Björklund. I did that 5 years ago (still using pine) and got angry mails
back saying that my mails where broken. I hope the todays email
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 15:17:26 -0500,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AFAICS, you're sending
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dennis_Bj=F6rklund?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which is an instance of the encoding scheme Bruno mentioned. I have
never heard that it is only supposed to be used in
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 11:32:42 +0500,
Michael Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I have found the simple solution by separating the user from the
owner of the tables, however!
I have simply created tables and functions in the owner's schema(A),
then granted execution to the other
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 17:27:25 +0100,
Dennis Haney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it just me, or is there any way a sort could be relevant in a
subquery? (except on queries containing volatile functions)
Yes. It is important when a limit or distinct on clause is used in a
subquery.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 17:48:51 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you very much for your reply. I'd like to discuss the why.
I don't think letting them share data and logs could gain me something.
And if I have 2 databases totally not relevant, I think the most natural
way is to make
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 17:09:21 -0500,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should we have a pgmon process that watches the postmaster
and restarts it if required?
I doubt it; in practice the postmaster is *very* reliable (because it
doesn't do much),
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 20:28:02 -0500,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Glaesemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In both cases, the CHECK constraint uses a function that is stable or
volatile. It was suggested that functions used in CHECK constraints be
restricted to immutable,
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 09:45:03 -0500,
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't a FK on both tables be the appropriate schema? With the FK on
contract being deffered?
No, since he only cares that there is at least one plan for a contract,
not a particular plan. You can do something
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 21:50:52 -0500,
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me the following should Just Work:
nconway=# create table t1 (a timestamp);
CREATE TABLE
nconway=# insert into t1 values (now());
INSERT 17164 1
nconway=# insert into t1 values (now());
INSERT 17165
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:24:28 -0500,
Fernando Nasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't really care on how its done, but IMO an enterprise class
database must be able to do log rotation. Logging to Syslog is not an
option (specially with our verbosity) -- users must be able to use flat
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 13:17:50 -0500,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you suggesting the that postgres project develop their own logger
rather than people just using one that has already been developed
by some other group?
The problem
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 15:19:29 -0500,
Fernando Nasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I can see their problem with making a dependency to all of apache or
including
multilog in their distribution. But they probably could include something
that is only a logger either
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 22:58:46 +,
Jon Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there some other way to do what I'm looking for here without the
authentication method fallthrough Josh proposes?
Assuming people aren't sharing accounts, you could let any authorized
postgres user connect using
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 02:01:40 +,
Jon Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's true, but that doesn't satisfy the need. I want an automated
process running as OS user postgres to authenticate with ident, but I'd
also like to be able have, say, phpPgAdmin (running as user apache)
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 06:01:03 -0700,
Michael Groth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi,
is it possible to use an index on the expression '(table_1.field
table_2.field)::int 0' ?
here's the whole query:
SELECT
COUNT(*)
FROM
users AS users
JOIN
search_profile AS
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 09:33:42 -0500,
Thomas Swan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a reason the postmasters cannot just close/reopen-recreate the
log file when a SIGHUP or other signal is issued like apache? This would
allow for almost any scheme for log rotation to be handled by the
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 16:36:57 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ease of use is VERY important, but few suggestions that address this are
ever really accepted. Yes, focusing on the functionality is the primary
concern, but how you set it up and deploy it is VERY important. You guys
need to
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:46:00 +0300,
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Industry practices dictate that we do issue SOMETHING now. The bug is
now public, and can be exploited.
The description of the problem indicates that it can only be exploited
after you have authenticated to the
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 23:36:49 +0300,
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My take on this is different. To me, a DoS is a nuisance, but an
arbitrary code execution vulnerability means information leak, and a
major escalation (from which further escalation may be possible).
A DOS
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 00:54:19 +0300,
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry. Maybe it's spending too many years in the security industry
(I've been Check Point's oh my god we have a security problem process
manager for over two years). Maybe it's knowing how to actually
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 10:17:31 -0400,
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CREATE DOMAIN doc_ident AS bigint NOT NULL DEFAULT
nextval('doc.seq_doc_id'::text)
CONSTRAINT cnst_chk_doc_id CHECK ( fn_chk_doc_id(VALUE) ) ;
I did not notice any similar error report on the list, so I
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:38:45 +0100,
Richard Huxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking as a DBA, what I usually want to do is restore to immediately before
I started the payroll calculation. An actual wall-clock time is mostly
irrelevant to me.
For long running transactions where you
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 21:31:33 -0400,
Andrew Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At some point (probably there now), I think the lack of a Postgres, Inc.
is going to hinder adoption. Companies want to 'buy' from vendors that look
like real, viable companies, and provide them products with
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 23:02:42 +,
Peter Galbavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
For long running transactions where you want to recover as much as
possible,
one might also want to recover up until just before a specific transaction
committed (as opposed to started
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 17:03:35 +0200,
Umberto Zappi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wish modify COPY command for support of CSV files (dump/load files in
CSV format).
I think this option is very important from import data from spreedsheet
as OpenOffice/calc or M$/excel.
I have found this task
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 04:36:55 +0200,
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The type is indexable and provide also conversion methods:
text -- email
and the operator , is possible use it in select like:
When you are converting between text and email data, what format are the
text
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 01:53:19 -0300,
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not true ... you just have to fix your definition of what a feature is ...
a feature is an improvement to the system, whether it be new
functionality, or improved performance ... I consider the work Tom did on
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 17:11:42 +0200,
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's true, I will order as Tommi Maekitalo suggest.
And how do domain literals fit into this?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid email address for me. (At least as
long as my server is at that IP address.)
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 17:01:36 +0200,
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also the validator will validate emails in this form, if you are thinking to
validate emails as:
Gaetano M. Public(junior)gmendola@(new account)bigfoot.com
That appears to be an rfc 2822 address. RFC 2821
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 18:01:43 +0200,
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well I think that accept an email like:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Be careful about this. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not the same as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
---(end of
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 18:00:48 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what we listen to relates to the destination address of the packets,
not the source address ...
There still is some small risk. If you OS doesn't reject packets destined
for 127.*.*.* that don't come from
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 17:06:18 -0400,
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll mention another perspective as a user. I'm actually happier seeing a
relatively minor release come out just before the big changes hit. If 7.5 has
Windows, PITR, nested transactions, etc. especially if I see
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 15:17:01 +0200,
Atesz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to ask why the index scaning can't move on an index in
multi-order directions (For exapmle: 1.column: forward, 2.column:
backward and 3.column: forward again)? So I wouldn't have to use so many
indexes. Has
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 10:43:51 -0700,
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Makefile for contrib/earthdistance indicates that there should be a
regression test, but the files seem to be missing from CVS. The change to
the
Makefile was made here:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 15:02:20 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is supposed to be a regression test. I may have forgotten to use
-N or -r on the diff. If it is confirmed that the files needed for the
regression test didn't make it into the submitted diff file, I can
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 16:10:19 -0400,
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 15:02:20 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is supposed to be a regression test. I may have forgotten to use
-N or -r on the diff
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 23:57:29 -0400,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How do I run the regression tests for /contrib stuff?
make
make install
make installcheck
AFAICT, earthdistance is nowhere near passing yet :-(. It looks to
me like the
AFAICT, earthdistance is nowhere near passing yet :-(. It looks to
me like the regression test is depending on the cube-based features
that we decided to hold off for 7.4. Bruno, is that right?
It shouldn't be. When I resubmitted the patch I intended to take out
all of the cube
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 18:04:01 +0200,
Hans-Jürgen Schönig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An example:
I have a join across 10 tables + 2 subselects across 4 tables
on the machine I use for testing:
planner: 12 seconds
executor: 1 second
The application will stay the same forever.
I
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 10:50:59 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I try to grant usage on language c in 7.3b1 I get an error message
saying I can't because the language isn't trusted. Is this different in b2?
I can see using whether or not a language is trusted to set
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 19:01:20 +0200,
Kaare Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Schema handling - ready? interfaces? client apps?
What is the state of the Perl interface?
Will it work when 7.3 is released
Will it work, but no schema support
Will it pop up later on CPAN
I am using Pg
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 01:04:55 -0400,
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The per db/user stuff is stored in the pg_database/pg_shadow tables per
row, so they exist in permanent storage.
I have a question about this. This stuff is per user OR per db right?
When I see per db/user I get
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 12:43:37 +0300,
Antti Haapala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
something which is strictly asthetic.
What about copy? AFAIK, copy
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 19:27:57 +0100,
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The printf(%A) output is not system-specific.
Just out of curiosity, can you tell me a web page or keywords to use
in a search to see what that format does? I tried using google, but
searching for printf with
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 14:03:21 -0600,
While I am not sure about triggers, it certainly is possible to get
a similar effect be having the referenced function run with the security
of the definer.
I read some more on triggers and found that according to the documentation,
they appear to run
Constraints also run as the user modifying a table instead of the table
owner.
Again I don't see a good reason to want to execute constraints as the
user modifying a table. But I do think there can be reasons to want to
execute them as the table owner.
To summarize, my suggestion for change is:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 10:17:26 -0500,
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't necessarily run them as the table owner, as it may give
information to other users with the ability to ALTER that table.
You have to be the table owner to alter a table. So it should be OK
to have the default
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 11:15:31 -0500,
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, default expressions and check constraints could possibly. However,
both revoke complex expressions (no sub-selects, etc) so there is little
point.
I disagree. They can call functions which can do unexpected
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 12:58:21 -0500,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I think an EXTRA_DIGITS setting might be interesting. In
particular, suppose we allowed EXTRA_DIGITS to be negative? Setting
it to -1 or -2 would go a long way towards eliminating our problems
with platform
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 23:19:05 +0100,
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There isn't a way right now, but it's planned to be able to dump
floating-point numbers in some binary form (like printf(%A)) to be able
to restore them exactly. Not sure how that would satisfy the needs of
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 08:27:37 -0600,
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do default expressions execute with access of the user doing the insert
or the owner of the table?
What I was thinking was that the owner of a table may want to allow people
to do inserts into a table and update
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 01:01:11 -0500,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The example of a serial column (DEFAULT nextval('foo_seq')) seems
compelling. You do not really want to grant general-purpose UPDATE
rights on foo_seq to everyone you might allow to INSERT into your
table.
If it is
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 21:35:40 -0500,
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we open up more security problems by having the inserter doing
things as the owner of the table.
With triggers it is a bit hard to decide. Since people other than the
table owner can create them, but then
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 17:05:38 +0200,
Igor Georgiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any way to prevent superuser to acces the database ?
I mean something like GRANT / REVOKE CONNECT MECHANISM
I have no idea how to prevent root from access data in one of this ways :
root @
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 13:44:11 -0400,
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't noticed any 'drag' so far this release ... we had a long beta
between 2 and 3, but 3-4 and 4-5 have been really short (so short that 4
didn't exist) ...
I managed to be running beta 4 for a day. At
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 13:41:18 +,
snpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
When I change view and change number of column PostgreSQL return error :
'cannot change number of column in view'
Is it too hard set this command
if view exits drop view
and then change view
It is like with
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 16:49:42 +,
snpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want that 'create or replace view' work drop-create if view exists else only
create
Why do you want this?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 17:00:30 +,
snpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 November 2002 05:01 pm, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 16:49:42 +,
snpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want that 'create or replace view' work drop-create if view exists else
only
For 7.4 I would like to add a function for importing float8 values
into cube. But because the cube data type is variable length I am
not sure what a good approach would be.
Currently this can be poorly done using text as an intermediate type.
As far as I can tell functions can't take sets as
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 15:19:54 -0500,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For 7.4 I would like to add a function for importing float8 values
into cube. But because the cube data type is variable length I am
not sure what a good approach would
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 13:39:11 -0500,
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So it would be possible to say for example:
select min(column1),lookup_min(column1,column2) from tab
to do the equivalent of:
select column1,column2 where column1=(select min(column1) from tab) limit 1
I am trying to create a domain with more than one check constraint and
I am getting an error that I don't think is correct according to the
documentation. I am not sure if this is a limitation of a partially
implemented feature or a bug that has so far been overlooked.
For example:
area=# create
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 21:23:01 -0800,
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I just noticed you can do this:
create table blah (
a not null references test on delete set null
)
Should that be prevented? It shouldn't be
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 22:30:45 -0800,
ow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, replication, performance improvements, cross-db queries, etc is
much better use of time than Windows port.
Welcome to open source where individual people get to decide what is most
important to spend their time on.
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 15:21:24 -0500,
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That just means you need some way for aggregates to declare which records they
need. The only values that seem like they would be useful would be first
record last record and all
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:13:04 +0100,
Jaume Teixi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how should I use COPY arti FROM 'ARTI.txt' USING DELIMITERS '|' as normal user ?
If you are using psql, use the \copy command.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 23:13:47 +0100,
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So a figerprint and all the hash/digest function have no purpose
at all?
The purpose of both is to reduce the amount of material in a way that
makes it hard to generate some other material that would result in the
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 15:22:12 +0900,
Curt Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2003, Greg Copeland wrote:
Hm. Splitting the key into parts is a very interesting idea, but I'd
be interested to know how you might implement it without requiring
everybody to be physically present
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:48:11 -0500,
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So one of the items on the TODO list is Add hash for evaluating GROUP BY
aggregates (Tom)
I'm finding this would benefit a lot of my queries. Most of the time seems to
be going into sorts for group by clauses. I
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 10:41:53 -0500,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So one of the items on the TODO list is Add hash for evaluating GROUP BY
aggregates (Tom)
It's done in CVS tip ... give it a try.
The neat thing is that hash aggregates
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 17:42:06 -0700,
scott.marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The poor performance of Postgresql in it's current default configuration
HAS cost us users, trust me, I know a few we've almost lost where I work
that I converted after some quick tweaking of their database.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 15:03:09 +,
Nigel J. Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is everyone forgetting that wherever the configuration file is stored and
whether or not it needs a command line argument to specify it the database is
not going to start up automatically unless at least part
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 09:23:20 -0500,
mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, however, I think the configuration issue is a no-brainer and
I am amazed that people are balking. EVERY other service on a UNIX box
is configured in this way, why not do it this way in PostgreSQL? The
patch
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:53:26 -0500,
mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where, specificaly are his arguements against a configuration file
methodology?
I don't think he is argueing against a configuration methodology, but
rather against the methodology being used in Unix distributions.
In
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:58:49 -0800,
Kevin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lest you think that this is an unlikely scenario, keep in mind that
most startup scripts, including pg_ctl, currently start the postmaster
without arguments and rely on PGDATA, so a shop that hasn't already
been
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 23:51:49 -0500,
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, odd, nobody mentioned this solution:
If you don't have a primary key already, create a unique index on the
combination you want to be unique. Then:
. Try to insert the record
. If you get a duplicate key
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 13:13:30 +0100,
Christoph Haller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moreover, are there any ANSI standards for this kind of thing? Or
each one
to his own?
Based on discussions in the past that I have loosely followed, I believe
there is some kind of standard and that
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 10:26:46 +0600,
Anuradha Ratnaweera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My 3rd attempt to post ...
Consider this query on a large table with lots of different IDs:
SELECT id FROM my_table GROUP BY id ORDER BY count(id) LIMIT 10;
It has an index on id. Obviously, the
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 14:19:46 -0600,
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Same setup, different query:
test= explain select max(time) from test where id = '1';
NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
Aggregate (cost=5084.67..5084.67 rows=1 width=0)
- Index Scan using idx on test (cost=0.00..5081.33
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 22:38:13 -0400,
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hackers,
One can alter a user to set a validity timestamp. However, unless one
uses the ugly kludge of setting a date very far into the future, there's
no way to set this validity forever.
There is an
Is it just the password that expires or the account? The comment for
valid until says the password is valid until that time. However, one of
the examples says the account is valid until that time.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 17:35:10 +0800,
Jinqiang Han [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, all hackers,
I can startup database using command /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -D
/usr/local/pgsql/data.
But when I debug it using gdb and set args -D /usr/local/pgsql/data, it can't
startup database. it
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:23:47 -0600,
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 09:23:28AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 14:19:46 -0600,
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Same setup, different query:
test= explain select max(time) from test
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:02:51 +0800,
Jinqiang Han [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III,
Did you notice that postmaster is a link to postgres. So argv[0] is postgres
not postmaster...
I wonder if postmaster.c is still in use. It is really weird.
argv[0] gets set from
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:39:55 -0400,
Chris McCormick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for reading. A few disclaimers:
MY PROBLEM - Because this site deals with, among other things, ancient
art, acheaology, and anthropology, I need a way to handle dates as
specific as a single day,
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 10:48:53 -0300,
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something to maybe add to the TODO list, if someone has the
time/inclination to work on it ...
The problem with the current auth system, as I see it, is that you can't
easily have seperate user lists and
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 22:35:26 -0700,
Most computer virus problems are caused by buffer overrun. Someone
decided it wasn't very important.
I disaggree with this. Most computer viruses that I see are rely on
poorly designed software and poorly trained users to propagate.
Buffer overruns
to this package were made by Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ in August of 2002.
+
+ These include changing the precision from single precision to double
+ precision and adding some new functions.
diff -c -r -N --exclude=CVS cube/cube.c newcube/cube.c
*** cube/cube.c Fri Aug 23 16:01:50 2002
I am almost done. While working on the regression test I found a significant
bug in the original earth distance package, so this really does need to
get updated. While I was doing that I switched it to use the haversine
formula as that is more accurate for short distances than the formula
they
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 12:00:29 +0800,
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys,
The latest thing we've noticed in the IRC channel and the phpPgAdmin
lists is that people want to be able to grant on all objects in a
database, etc:
The right way to do this is to make
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 19:35:56 -0700,
Sailesh Krishnamurthy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another question about regular RULE processing .. suppose after
applying a rule the resultant query tree is eligible for another rule,
does pgsql's rule system keep iterating over and over until it
1 - 100 of 324 matches
Mail list logo
