[ADMIN] indexes are not working for

2004-10-22 Thread Anshaj
Dear group, I have a table foo anshajdb=# \d foo Table public.foo Column | Type| Modifiers -+---+--- snumber | numeric(18,0) | test| character varying | Indexes: snum_idx btree (snumber) when I try to do a query

Re: [ADMIN] replication using WAL archives

2004-10-22 Thread Simon Riggs
Gaetano Mendola wrote Postgres can help this process, as suggested by Tom creating a pg_current_wal() or even better having two new GUC parameters: archive_current_wal_command and archive_current_wal_delay. OK, we can modify the archiver to do this as well as the archive-when-full

Re: [ADMIN] indexes are not working for

2004-10-22 Thread Robert Treat
Please do not post new topic as reply's to unrelated threads!! On Friday 22 October 2004 02:10, Anshaj wrote: Dear group, I have a table foo anshajdb=# \d foo Table public.foo Column | Type| Modifiers -+---+--- snumber |

Re: [ADMIN] REVOKE not working...

2004-10-22 Thread Joe Maldonado
Scott Marlowe wrote: On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 10:49, Joe Maldonado wrote: Scott Marlowe wrote: On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 08:17, Joe Maldonado wrote: Hello all, I have created users for which I have restricted access to SELECT from a set of tables, this works :) But

Re: [ADMIN] REVOKE not working...

2004-10-22 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Joe Maldonado wrote: Scott Marlowe wrote: On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 10:49, Joe Maldonado wrote: Scott Marlowe wrote: On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 08:17, Joe Maldonado wrote: Hello all, I have created users for which I have restricted access to SELECT

Re: [ADMIN] indexes are not working for

2004-10-22 Thread Tom Lane
Anshaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: when I try to do a query like explain analyze select * from foo where snumber 1000; It do a sequence scan on table. One-sided inequalities are frequently not selective enough to justify an indexscan. A rule of thumb is that if the WHERE selects more than one

Re: [ADMIN] REVOKE not working...

2004-10-22 Thread Joe Maldonado
Stephan Szabo wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Joe Maldonado wrote: Scott Marlowe wrote: On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 10:49, Joe Maldonado wrote: Scott Marlowe wrote: On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 08:17, Joe Maldonado wrote: Hello all, I have created users for which I have

[ADMIN] RPM vs. Compile benefits?

2004-10-22 Thread Doug Y
Hello, I'm curious if I would see any specific benefit from compiling Postgres from scratch vs. using an RPM supplied by the distribution? We're currently using 7.4.2 from an RPM on SuSE 9.0 Pro. I'd guess RPMs are usually configured with the least common denominator in mind. All the software

Re: [ADMIN] replication using WAL archives

2004-10-22 Thread Gaetano Mendola
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Simon Riggs wrote: |Gaetano Mendola wrote |Postgres can help this process, as suggested by Tom creating a | | pg_current_wal() | |or even better having two new GUC parameters: archive_current_wal_command | | and | |archive_current_wal_delay. | | | OK,

Re: [ADMIN] replication using WAL archives

2004-10-22 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 17:44, Gaetano Mendola wrote: | Gaetano - skim-reading your script, how do you handle the situation when a | new xlog file has been written within 10 seconds? That way the current file | number will have jumped by 2, so when your script looks for the Last wal | using head

Re: [ADMIN] RPM vs. Compile benefits?

2004-10-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:04:04 -0400, Doug Y [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I'm curious if I would see any specific benefit from compiling Postgres from scratch vs. using an RPM supplied by the distribution? We're currently using 7.4.2 from an RPM on SuSE 9.0 Pro. I'd guess RPMs are

Re: [ADMIN] RPM vs. Compile benefits?

2004-10-22 Thread Devrim GUNDUZ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Doug Y wrote: I'm curious if I would see any specific benefit from compiling Postgres from scratch vs. using an RPM supplied by the distribution? Remembering that we can build our own RPMS using SRPMS, I've always believed

Re: [ADMIN] replication using WAL archives

2004-10-22 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Simon Riggs wrote: Situation I thought I saw was: - copy away current partial filled xlog N - xlog N fills, N+1 starts - xlog N+1 fills, N+2 starts - copy away current partial filled xlog: N+2 (+10 secs later) i.e. if time to fill xlog (is ever) time to copy away current xlog, then you

Re: [ADMIN] About System Catalogs

2004-10-22 Thread Thomas Swan
Tom Lane wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2) As i had a very large pg_largeogject, i deleted rows e now i have a clean, small table. The table is empty but its index pg_largeogject_loid_pn_index lasts to retain a lot of bytes. REINDEX should fix this. Is