Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on Linux]
Herve Lefebvre wrote: > ---Marc Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, The Web Administrator wrote: > > > > > Nope.. Oracle has a background process which re-allocates free > space..It does get > > > fragmented, and the only real way to unfrag is to export (dump) > and import.No Vacuum, > > > at least on 7.3.2 > > > > So, essentially, our VACUUM command provides functionality that > > Oracle *doesn't* have, right? > > I don't think any fragmentation occurs under Oracle, if dataspaces are > allocated on raw-devices (wich is a functionnality PG doesn't have). > Of course, most DBA's I know never use raw devices, because of issues such as backups, etc... and even then, (but I am no expert here) I understand that data still gets fragmented because of it's implementation of data blocks, and it's rules for when to use the next block etc.. It has to allow for records which expand and contract, so it leaves room initially to allow for this so that records never span across two data blocks etc..Getting out my trusty Oracle Manual Under Fragmentation To determine the amount of fragmentation... select tablespace_name, sum(bytes), max(bytes), count(tablespace_name) from dba_free_space group by tablespace_name order by tablespace_name / If the number of contigous blocks is greater than 10 to 15, you should defrag the tablespace. The steps are 1) export data from the tablespace with the 'exp' utility. For indexes, capture the SQL to recreate them 2) Drop all the objects 3) Drop the tablespace 4) Recreate the tablespace 5) Import the data back into the tablespace with the 'imp' utility. Maunally recreate indexes by using their SQL scripts. Having sorted all that out... I think we should stop asking what 'Others' have, and just concentrate on making Postgres the best database out there, and let 'Others' implement Postgres Features.. IMHO, to often we are so intent on copying the 'Big Guys' that qwe forget out own strengths to the point that we start burdening clean code with garbage for compatibilities sake, rather than looking at it from scratch and seeing what the most effecient method is... The boys at Postgres have so far done a good job of creating an effecient Database, let's keep it that way, rather than created a Clone of some commercial software that might have years of compatibility issues that forced implementation of methods that may not be the most effecient.. So let's stop comparing Postgres to the rest.. If there is something we need to do with our Databases that we can't, then these are the issues we should address only.. It's like saying let's unix should use back slashes instead of forward slashes.. just because that is what windows/dos does... Or that we should recode Ultima to use a Doom perspective... Let Postgres stand on it's own merits, and not it's Oracle Compatibility.. Imagine what would have happened if Linus Torvald whould have decided that Linux needed to be Windows compatible.. The code would not have been the work of art it is today.. Well enough editorializing.. That's my last note on the Postgres vs. the rest argument.. -- ++ Michael - System Administrator Working in Cheap Canadian Dollars Unix Administration - WebSite Hosting - Network Services - Programming Wizard Internet Services - TechnoWizard Computers - Wizard Tower TechnoServices -- (604) 589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada ++
Re: [GENERAL] postgresql website
Well, humour me for a second.. I am just setting up a Canadian Mirror.. So far most of the links seem to keep working, and the rest of the links actually take you to the main postgres site..(For the message search's etc.) Check to see if you find any links not working, and let me know :> Saves me the work.. I THINK I checked em all... Oliver Mueschke wrote: > hi there, > > frankly i would say that the mirrored postgresql website is the best > reason to avoid postgresql. (i tested the german and the uk sites.) most > of the links don't work at all or show "interesting" error messages. all > this would be of minor interest if there was a way to access the main > (and working?) postgresql url. > > regards > oliver > > ps: i use postgresql since 6.2.1 and i really do like it. > > --- example output of third party and examples search engine - > > Based on PostgreSQL v6.0, this page uses the C API for the search > engine, as well as the insertion screen, and PHP/FI for the detail > screens for each of the records. > > The engine is currently under construction so there would be errors > specifically when clicking on the more link in the generated list > > 0 total hits since Wednesday July 8. 0 hits today. > No Previous Access to this page > Page was last updated on Thursday > December 25, 1997 at 8:44:00 > Overview.phtml: dbmopen: 3 [File open error], > 13 [Permission denied] on line 84 > > Overview.phtml: Unable to create > > /var/log/apache/1000/mirrors_postgres95_html_software_Overview.phtml.log > on line 84 > - -- ++ Michael - System Administrator Working in Cheap Canadian Dollars Unix Administration - WebSite Hosting - Network Services - Programming Wizard Internet Services - TechnoWizard Computers - Wizard Tower TechnoServices -- (604) 589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada ++
[GENERAL] Re: default year
Any one know how to change the default behavior of when /56 (year) should be 1958 instead of 2056? Using the date function for birthdays, and amazing how many people are -50 years old :> -- ++ Michael - System Administrator Working in Cheap Canadian Dollars Unix Administration - WebSite Hosting - Network Services - Programming Wizard Internet Services - TechnoWizard Computers - Wizard Tower TechnoServices -- (604) 589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada ++
Re: [GENERAL] Privileges
Besides \z ?
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have a couple of questions for you:
>
> We are trying to setup a "group" in our database... groupx.
> I found the syntax in the FAQ, from the PostgreSQL homepage.
> So, we followed the syntax and created the group:
>
> insert into pg_group values ('groupx', '1234', {5678, 9876});
>
> It worked. We now have a group, groupx. Then, we granted permissions to
> that group for a particular table, foo:
>
> grant insert on foo to group groupx;
>
> That seemed to work, too. So, I (as part of that group, and as a user
> that did not previously have permissions to the table) then inserted some
> values into the table. Fine. That worked too. Then, however, we tried
> to revoke those privileges:
>
> revoke insert on foo from group groupx;
>
> That command did not return an error, rather it said CHANGE (without
> the exclamation marks, of course). However, afterward, I was still able
> to insert into the table. What gives?
>
> Also, another question:
>
> How do you check to see exactly who has permissions to any particular
> table?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Bob Dusek
