[GENERAL] GSL in mcbc(redhat)
Hello, colleagues ! I have to develop some functions onto postgresql server 9.2 based on Gnu Scientific Library. Under redhat I compile gsl with ./configure --prefix=/usr/local compile postgresql with ./configure --prefix=/usr/local --with-uuid-ossp --with-xml --with-xslt. After that I try to put our functions with -lgsl and receive error libfloader.so cannot load libgsl.so.0 file not found. Under gentoo or ubuntu all works fine. Any ideas ? -- Best regards, Sincerely yours, Yuriy Rusinov.
[GENERAL] list non alphanumeric
Hi Firstly let me mention I am a noob to postgres,DB and sql anyway, I have a column with First names and need to list names that have non-alphanumeric characters in them like + or * and the list goes on. I did google a bit and tried: select * from TABLE where first_name not like '%[a-z0-9]%'; However the above shows all the entries in that column and if I change it to Like, which should show all the entries it shows nothing. e.g of my goal: Column Bob Jane+ Harry* John Mike Larry My query should output Jane+ Harry* To read FirstRand Bank's Disclaimer for this email click on the following address or copy into your Internet browser: https://www.fnb.co.za/disclaimer.html If you are unable to access the Disclaimer, send a blank e-mail to firstrandbankdisclai...@fnb.co.za and we will send you a copy of the Disclaimer.
Re: [GENERAL] list non alphanumeric
On 4/11/2013 11:23 PM, Baboo, Isa wrote: Firstly let me mention I am a noob to postgres,DB and sql anyway, I have a column with First names and need to list names that have non-alphanumeric characters in them like + or * and the list goes on. I did google a bit and tried: /select * from TABLE where first_name not like '%[a-z0-9]%'; / you'll probably have to use a regex for that. something like... (my regex is really rusty) ... WHERE first_name !~ '^[a-z0-9]*$'; -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast
Re: [GENERAL] list non alphanumeric
Hi Thanks for the response but I tried that and it does not work here is an example of names which still display. test sadadds Hillary BEN NAME ALAN MCGARVEY + From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of John R Pierce Sent: 12 April 2013 08:41 AM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] list non alphanumeric On 4/11/2013 11:23 PM, Baboo, Isa wrote: Firstly let me mention I am a noob to postgres,DB and sql anyway, I have a column with First names and need to list names that have non-alphanumeric characters in them like + or * and the list goes on. I did google a bit and tried: select * from TABLE where first_name not like '%[a-z0-9]%'; you'll probably have to use a regex for that. something like... (my regex is really rusty) ... WHERE first_name !~ '^[a-z0-9]*$'; -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast To read FirstRand Bank's Disclaimer for this email click on the following address or copy into your Internet browser: https://www.fnb.co.za/disclaimer.html If you are unable to access the Disclaimer, send a blank e-mail to firstrandbankdisclai...@fnb.co.za and we will send you a copy of the Disclaimer.
Re: [GENERAL] list non alphanumeric
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of John R Pierce Sent: 12 April 2013 08:41 AM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] list non alphanumeric On 4/11/2013 11:23 PM, Baboo, Isa wrote: Firstly let me mention I am a noob to postgres,DB and sql anyway, I have a column with First names and need to list names that have non-alphanumeric characters in them like + or * and the list goes on. I did google a bit and tried: select * from TABLE where first_name not like '%[a-z0-9]%'; you'll probably have to use a regex for that. something like... (my regex is really rusty) ... WHERE first_name !~ '^[a-z0-9]*$'; 2013/4/12 Baboo, Isa iba...@fnb.co.za: Hi Thanks for the response but I tried that and it does not work here is an example of names which still display. test sadadds Hillary BEN NAME ALAN MCGARVEY + Something like: ... WHERE first_name ~ '[^\w]' might do the trick. Regards Ian Barwick -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] list non alphanumeric
On 4/11/2013 11:50 PM, Baboo, Isa wrote: Thanks for the response but I tried that and it does not work here is an example of names which still display. test sadadds Hillary BEN NAME ALAN MCGARVEY + well, at least one of those has a space inline, you didn't say that was acceptable, just a-z0-9 and of course, upper and lower case, so you probably should use [A-Za-z0-9 ] (note the space before the close bracket) -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast
Re: [GENERAL] list non alphanumeric
Hi It still displaying everything, maybe it is the spaces? test sadadds Hillary BEN NAME BOB /+ ...skipping ALAN MCGARVEY + -Original Message- From: Ian Lawrence Barwick [mailto:barw...@gmail.com] Sent: 12 April 2013 09:08 AM To: Baboo, Isa Cc: John R Pierce; pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] list non alphanumeric From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of John R Pierce Sent: 12 April 2013 08:41 AM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] list non alphanumeric On 4/11/2013 11:23 PM, Baboo, Isa wrote: Firstly let me mention I am a noob to postgres,DB and sql anyway, I have a column with First names and need to list names that have non-alphanumeric characters in them like + or * and the list goes on. I did google a bit and tried: select * from TABLE where first_name not like '%[a-z0-9]%'; you'll probably have to use a regex for that. something like... (my regex is really rusty) ... WHERE first_name !~ '^[a-z0-9]*$'; 2013/4/12 Baboo, Isa iba...@fnb.co.za: Hi Thanks for the response but I tried that and it does not work here is an example of names which still display. test sadadds Hillary BEN NAME ALAN MCGARVEY + Something like: ... WHERE first_name ~ '[^\w]' might do the trick. Regards Ian Barwick To read FirstRand Bank's Disclaimer for this email click on the following address or copy into your Internet browser: https://www.fnb.co.za/disclaimer.html If you are unable to access the Disclaimer, send a blank e-mail to firstrandbankdisclai...@fnb.co.za and we will send you a copy of the Disclaimer. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] list non alphanumeric
Hi Sorry guys I should have mention spaces, I did but it was a bit late. Anyway that [A-Za-z0-9 ] worked thanks John. From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of John R Pierce Sent: 12 April 2013 09:12 AM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] list non alphanumeric On 4/11/2013 11:50 PM, Baboo, Isa wrote: Thanks for the response but I tried that and it does not work here is an example of names which still display. test sadadds Hillary BEN NAME ALAN MCGARVEY + well, at least one of those has a space inline, you didn't say that was acceptable, just a-z0-9 and of course, upper and lower case, so you probably should use [A-Za-z0-9 ] (note the space before the close bracket) -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast To read FirstRand Bank's Disclaimer for this email click on the following address or copy into your Internet browser: https://www.fnb.co.za/disclaimer.html If you are unable to access the Disclaimer, send a blank e-mail to firstrandbankdisclai...@fnb.co.za and we will send you a copy of the Disclaimer.
Re: [GENERAL] How to convert US date format to European date format ?
On 2013-04-10 22:35, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
John R Pierce wrote on 10.04.2013 21:28:
On 4/10/2013 6:15 AM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
psql (one of the possible client applications) uses the datestyle
parameter to decide on how to format a date column when displaying
it.
If you change the datestyle parameter in postgresql.conf, it will
influence the way psql displays the date values. Probably pgAdmin
will also check that setting (as I don't use pgAdmin I can't really
tell).
PSQL doesn't use that, postgres itself does. it can be set on the
fly with SET on a per-connection basis, or with ALTER DATABASE on a
per-database basis.
But the *display* is done by the client.
And if Postgres (the server) did the conversion, I would not be able
to see a different date formatting in e.g. a JDBC based tool. So I
guess psql is reading that database/server setting.
Hello again,
what parameter should I use to have date in format:
dd-mm- ? I try to use Posgtgres, DMY and it's seems is work,
but not in my case, because I have also a field:
last_date timestamp without time zone default
('now'::text)::timestamp(6) with time zone
and ISO, DMY show me: 2012-10-15 11:00:49.397908 if I use Postgres, DMY
show me
Mon 15 Oct 11:00:49.397908 2012
But I want to be formatted: 11:00:49 15-10-2012
Is this possible to be done ?
Cheers,
Hristo S.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] How to convert US date format to European date format ?
On 4/12/2013 12:42 AM, Condor wrote: and ISO, DMY show me: 2012-10-15 11:00:49.397908 if I use Postgres, DMY show me Mon 15 Oct 11:00:49.397908 2012 But I want to be formatted: 11:00:49 15-10-2012 use the date formatting functions, like... select to_char(yourfield, 'HH:MI:SS DD-MM-') ... see http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/functions-formatting.html -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] Why is PostgreSQL 9.1 not using index for simple equality select
Any hints with this question I had posted to SO? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15965785/why-is-postgresql-9-1-not-using-index-for-simple-equality-select Pasted here as well. Thanks. My table `lead` has an index: \d lead ... Indexes: lead_pkey PRIMARY KEY, btree (id) lead_account__c btree (account__c) ... lead_email btree (email) lead_id_prefix btree (id text_pattern_ops) Why doesn't PG (9.1) use the index for this straightforward equality selection? Emails are almost all unique db= explain select * from lead where email = 'blah'; QUERY PLAN Seq Scan on lead (cost=0.00..319599.38 rows=1 width=5108) Filter: (email = 'blah'::text) (2 rows) Other index-hitting queries seem to be OK (though I don't know why this one doesn't just use the pkey index): db= explain select * from lead where id = ''; QUERY PLAN -- Index Scan using lead_id_prefix on lead (cost=0.00..8.57 rows=1 width=5108) Index Cond: (id = ''::text) (2 rows) db= explain select * from lead where account__c = ''; QUERY PLAN -- Index Scan using lead_account__c on lead (cost=0.00..201.05 rows=49 width=5108) Index Cond: (account__c = ''::text) (2 rows) At first I thought it may be due to not enough distinct values of `email`. For instance, if the stats claim that `email` is `blah` for most of the table, then a seq scan is faster. But that's not the case: db= select count(*), count(distinct email) from lead; count | count + 749148 | 733416 (1 row) Even if I force seq scans to be off, the planner behaves as if it has no other choice: db= set enable_seqscan = off; SET db= show enable_seqscan; enable_seqscan off (1 row) db= explain select * from lead where email = 'f...@blah.com'; QUERY PLAN --- Seq Scan on lead (cost=100.00..1319599.38 rows=1 width=5108) Filter: (email = 'f...@blah.com'::text) (2 rows) I searched over a good number of past SO questions but none were about a simple equality query like this one. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Why is PostgreSQL 9.1 not using index for simple equality select
On 4/12/2013 1:03 AM, Yang Zhang wrote: db= explain select * from lead where email = 'blah'; QUERY PLAN Seq Scan on lead (cost=0.00..319599.38 rows=1 width=5108) Filter: (email = 'blah'::text) try EXPLAIN ANALYZE .its more useful. my guess is, there's no statistics on this table, and doing an ANALYZE lead; would rectify this. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Why is PostgreSQL 9.1 not using index for simple equality select
Doesn't seem to be the case. This table has been around for a while and should have been auto-analyzed by now. But anyway: db= analyze lead; ANALYZE db= explain select * from lead where email = 'f...@blah.com'; QUERY PLAN --- Seq Scan on lead (cost=100.00..1319666.99 rows=1 width=5208) Filter: (email = 'f...@blah.com'::text) (2 rows) On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:13 AM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote: On 4/12/2013 1:03 AM, Yang Zhang wrote: db= explain select * from lead where email = 'blah'; QUERY PLAN Seq Scan on lead (cost=0.00..319599.38 rows=1 width=5108) Filter: (email = 'blah'::text) try EXPLAIN ANALYZE .its more useful. my guess is, there's no statistics on this table, and doing an ANALYZE lead; would rectify this. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Yang Zhang http://yz.mit.edu/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] Automatic restart while upgrade
Hello, I discovered that while upgrading PostgreSQL binaries through 'yum update', with PGDG RPMs, the service is automatically restarted. ISTM that this was not the case before 9.2. May you confirm that this is a new behaviour appearing in 9.2? Is it intended, and is there a way to prevent the automatic restart? Thanks in advance. Best regards, Stéphane Schildknecht http://loxodata.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Why is PostgreSQL 9.1 not using index for simple equality select
On 12 April 2013 10:45, Yang Zhang yanghates...@gmail.com wrote: explain select * from lead where email = 'f...@blah.com'; What about: explain analyze select * from lead where email = 'f...@blah.com'; -- If you can't see the forest for the trees, Cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.
Re: [GENERAL] How to convert US date format to European date format ?
On 2013-04-12 10:59, John R Pierce wrote:
On 4/12/2013 12:42 AM, Condor wrote:
and ISO, DMY show me: 2012-10-15 11:00:49.397908 if I use Postgres,
DMY show me
Mon 15 Oct 11:00:49.397908 2012
But I want to be formatted: 11:00:49 15-10-2012
use the date formatting functions, like...
select to_char(yourfield, 'HH:MI:SS DD-MM-') ...
see
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/functions-formatting.html
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
Yes, I see this function but if I need to select 100 000 rows this mean
I think,
this function will be start 100 000 times. I mean when I ask the
question,
it's is possible to format the date how I like it without to use
functions,
just something like: set datestyle ('postgres with my custom format
00:00:00 dmy', DMY)
something like that. Sry that I did not explain it.
Cheers,
Hristo S.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] How to convert US date format to European date format ?
2013/4/12 Condor con...@stz-bg.com
On 2013-04-12 10:59, John R Pierce wrote:
On 4/12/2013 12:42 AM, Condor wrote:
and ISO, DMY show me: 2012-10-15 11:00:49.397908 if I use Postgres, DMY
show me
Mon 15 Oct 11:00:49.397908 2012
But I want to be formatted: 11:00:49 15-10-2012
use the date formatting functions, like...
select to_char(yourfield, 'HH:MI:SS DD-MM-') ...
see http://www.postgresql.org/**docs/current/static/functions-**
formatting.htmlhttp://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/functions-formatting.html
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
Yes, I see this function but if I need to select 100 000 rows this mean I
think,
this function will be start 100 000 times. I mean when I ask the question,
it's is possible to format the date how I like it without to use functions,
just something like: set datestyle ('postgres with my custom format
00:00:00 dmy', DMY)
something like that. Sry that I did not explain it.
If you cannot use datestyle, then there are no any other possibility.
Postgres doesn't support custom datestyles.
Regards
Pavel
Cheers,
Hristo S.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/**mailpref/pgsql-generalhttp://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Why is PostgreSQL 9.1 not using index for simple equality select
On 4/12/2013 1:45 AM, Yang Zhang wrote: db= explain select * from lead where email = 'f...@blah.com'; can you try explain analyze select * from lead where email = 'f...@blah.com'; ? -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast
Re: [GENERAL] Segmentation fault with core dump
On 2013-04-10 19:06:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: (Wanders away wondering just how much the regression tests exercise holdable cursors.) And the answer is they're not testing this code path at all, because if you do DECLARE c CURSOR WITH HOLD FOR ... FETCH ALL FROM c; then the second query executes with a portal (and resource owner) created to execute the FETCH command, not directly on the held portal. After a little bit of thought I'm not sure it's even possible to reproduce this problem with libpq, because it doesn't expose any way to issue a bare protocol Execute command against a pre-existing portal. (I had thought psqlOBC went through libpq, but maybe it's playing some games here.) Anyway, I'm thinking the appropriate fix might be like this - CurrentResourceOwner = portal-resowner; + if (portal-resowner) + CurrentResourceOwner = portal-resowner; in several places in pquery.c; that is, keep using TopTransactionResourceOwner if the portal doesn't have its own. A more general but probably much more invasive solution would be to fake up an intermediate portal when pulling data from a held portal, to more closely approximate the explicit-FETCH case. We could also allocate a new resowner for the duration of that transaction. That would get reassigned to the transactions resowner in PreCommit_Portals (after a slight change there). That actually seems simple enough? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] How to convert US date format to European date format ?
On 04/12/2013 01:54 AM, Condor wrote:
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
Yes, I see this function but if I need to select 100 000 rows this mean
I think,
this function will be start 100 000 times. I mean when I ask the question,
it's is possible to format the date how I like it without to use functions,
just something like: set datestyle ('postgres with my custom format
00:00:00 dmy', DMY)
something like that. Sry that I did not explain it.
FYI, DateStyle uses functions also, as the stored date has to be
reformatted to whatever style is chosen. See datetime.c in the source
for the functions. I would try to_char() and see if it makes a
discernible difference in the select.
Cheers,
Hristo S.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@gmail.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Automatic restart while upgrade
stephane.schildkne...@postgres.fr writes: I discovered that while upgrading PostgreSQL binaries through 'yum update', with PGDG RPMs, the service is automatically restarted. ISTM that this was not the case before 9.2. I dunno whether Devrim's packages acted that way before 9.2, but this is standard behavior for all services in Red Hat environments, and always has been. Otherwise an intended security patch, for instance, might not be activated till long past when the admin thought he'd installed it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Why is PostgreSQL 9.1 not using index for simple equality select
Yang Zhang yanghates...@gmail.com writes: db= explain select * from lead where email = 'blah'; QUERY PLAN Seq Scan on lead (cost=0.00..319599.38 rows=1 width=5108) Filter: (email = 'blah'::text) (2 rows) That's awfully odd. What data type is the email column? It seems possible also that the index on it is marked invalid. I'd have expected \d to tell you so, but maybe you're using a version of psql that doesn't know about that. It'd be interesting to look at select * from pg_index where indexrelid = 'index name here'::regclass; regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Why is PostgreSQL 9.1 not using index for simple equality select
It's actually just `text`. I updated my SO question with some more info including explain analyze (no difference), \d, and your last incantation. Thanks! On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Yang Zhang yanghates...@gmail.com writes: db= explain select * from lead where email = 'blah'; QUERY PLAN Seq Scan on lead (cost=0.00..319599.38 rows=1 width=5108) Filter: (email = 'blah'::text) (2 rows) That's awfully odd. What data type is the email column? It seems possible also that the index on it is marked invalid. I'd have expected \d to tell you so, but maybe you're using a version of psql that doesn't know about that. It'd be interesting to look at select * from pg_index where indexrelid = 'index name here'::regclass; regards, tom lane -- Yang Zhang http://yz.mit.edu/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Why is PostgreSQL 9.1 not using index for simple equality select
Yang Zhang yanghates...@gmail.com writes: I updated my SO question with some more info including explain analyze (no difference), \d, and your last incantation. The question is being asked here, not in SO, and I find it rather impolite of you to expect me to go chasing off to some other forum to answer your question. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Why is PostgreSQL 9.1 not using index for simple equality select
Apologies for that Tom. I will paste the information in line once I'm back at my computer. I do appreciate your help. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Yang Zhang yanghates...@gmail.com writes: I updated my SO question with some more info including explain analyze (no difference), \d, and your last incantation. The question is being asked here, not in SO, and I find it rather impolite of you to expect me to go chasing off to some other forum to answer your question. regards, tom lane -- Yang Zhang http://yz.mit.edu/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] False unique constraint violation (exception block)
Hello. This is simple example for describe my problem. I created a table: CREATE TABLE table0 ( id serial NOT NULL, field0 integer, field1 text ); I created an unique index for this table: CREATE UNIQUE INDEX idx_table0_unique ON table0 ( field0, coalesce ( field1, 'INDEX_COLUMN_NULL' ) ); I created function for insert only unique record (part of code): BEGIN INSERT INTO table0 ( field0, field1 ) VALUES ( p_field0, p_field1 ) RETURNING id INTO v_table0_id; EXCEPTION WHEN unique_violation THEN SELECT id FROM table0 WHERE field0 = p_field0 AND field1 = p_field1; END; I use this function for add data to table and sometimes I getting false unique violation (in block above). Why? Thanks for replay. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Automatic restart while upgrade
On 13/04/13 02:08, Tom Lane wrote: stephane.schildkne...@postgres.fr writes: I discovered that while upgrading PostgreSQL binaries through 'yum update', with PGDG RPMs, the service is automatically restarted. ISTM that this was not the case before 9.2. I dunno whether Devrim's packages acted that way before 9.2, but this is standard behavior for all services in Red Hat environments, and always has been. Otherwise an intended security patch, for instance, might not be activated till long past when the admin thought he'd installed it. regards, tom lane As far as I can recall: that is standard yum behaviour for all packages updated, rather than installed, for over 10 years, I first stared using Red Hat, now Fedora, in about 2001. Cheers, Gavin
[GENERAL] GSL onto postgresql server 9.2
Hello, colleagues ! I have to put some C-language functions onto postgresql server 9.2. These functions are used GSL software library http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/. In Makefile for these functions I wrote LD_FLAGS = ... -lgsl, On some source-based Linux distributions such as gentoo linux these functions successfully installed onto server, but on rpm-based distributions such as fedora and others does not. gsl library has to be compiled from sources, because some specific distributions does not have this one and rpm-installation of this library does not allowed. Error message is error mylibrary.so cannot load libgsl.so.0 no such file despite of gsl library was installed onto /usr/local, library files are installed into /usr/local/lib. Where is the problem in postgresql or distribution ? -- Best regards, Sincerely yours, Yuriy Rusinov.
Re: [GENERAL] False unique constraint violation (exception block)
whiplash whipl...@bss.org.ua wrote: sometimes I getting false unique violation How do you know that they are false? What version of PostgreSQL is this? Can you create a small self-contained test case that demonstrates the issue? (The snippets you provided probably excluded the cause of the problem.) http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Guide_to_reporting_problems -- Kevin Grittner EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] False unique constraint violation (exception block)
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:44 AM, whiplash whipl...@bss.org.ua wrote: CREATE UNIQUE INDEX idx_table0_unique ON table0 ( field0, coalesce ( field1, 'INDEX_COLUMN_NULL' ) ); I created function for insert only unique record (part of code): BEGIN INSERT INTO table0 ( field0, field1 ) VALUES ( p_field0, p_field1 ) RETURNING id INTO v_table0_id; EXCEPTION WHEN unique_violation THEN SELECT id FROM table0 WHERE field0 = p_field0 AND field1 = p_field1; END; I use this function for add data to table and sometimes I getting false unique violation (in block above). Why? if p_field1 is NULL, then the select cannot return any rows, but can still violate the constraint. Also, you may have a race, where the row exists when the insert was attempted, but was gone by the time it tried to do the select. Cheers, Jeff
