Hi,
Our production server is running PostgreSQL v8.2.3 on Red Hat Enterprise
Linux Server release 5 (Tikanga).
I need a clarification on how autovacuum daemon internally works/handles in
the following specific use case/situation:
1. Does autovacuum daemon works with one table at a time or does i
Greg Smith writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We can't portably lock the socket file itself, so we make a separate
>> ordinary file for locking purposes.
> It looks to me like the fact that the .lock file is created is only
> documented in src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c , and even there the
> reas
Tom Lane wrote:
We can't portably lock the socket file itself, so we make a separate
ordinary file for locking purposes.
It looks to me like the fact that the .lock file is created is only
documented in src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c , and even there the
reason why (what you wrote above
Per my original email, we were calling the has_table_privilege function to
revoke rather than simply revoking.
Thank you very much,
Sincerely,
Kasia
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Grittner [mailto:kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1:00 PM
To: Kasia Tuszynska;
Please ignore my previous response, there's no value there.
List traffic in the meantime (since I composed and sent it) has far more good
information.
sorry,
~c
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.pos
Kasia Tuszynska wrote:
> We found this issue because we can grant privs to public on a
> table, but could not revoke them.
Odd.
test=# create table t1 (c1 int primary key);
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index
"t1_pkey" for table "t1"
CREATE TABLE
test=# grant inser
Kasia Tuszynska wrote:
Szymon,
The PUBLIC role is a default, non login role, that is created with every
postgres cluster/instance.
To my knowledge PUBLIC is a standard user in any rdbms. So, existence
of public is not the issue here.
Sincerely,
Kasia
Kasia,
I think your assumption
2010/8/10 Kasia Tuszynska
> Kevin,
> I know public is there from using it every day, but if it were not for you
> post I would not know how to prove it, none of the views, graphical admin
> tools etc. display it as a user.
>
> We found this issue because we can grant privs to public on a table, b
Kevin,
I know public is there from using it every day, but if it were not for you post
I would not know how to prove it, none of the views, graphical admin tools etc.
display it as a user.
We found this issue because we can grant privs to public on a table, but could
not revoke them. If I did
2010/8/10 Kevin Grittner
> Szymon Guz wrote:
>
> > No, there is no PUBLIC default role in ANY rdbms. In PostgreSQL
> > there is PUBLIC schema, not role. In my PostgreSQL database there
> > wasn't any such role... but I'll check that now... ok, I've
> > checked, I've got 15 roles, none is names P
Szymon Guz wrote:
> No, there is no PUBLIC default role in ANY rdbms. In PostgreSQL
> there is PUBLIC schema, not role. In my PostgreSQL database there
> wasn't any such role... but I'll check that now... ok, I've
> checked, I've got 15 roles, none is names PUBLIC, what's more, I
> don't have an
2010/8/10 Kasia Tuszynska
> Szymon,
>
> The PUBLIC role is a default, non login role, that is created with every
> postgres cluster/instance.
>
> To my knowledge PUBLIC is a standard user in any rdbms. So, existence of
> public is not the issue here.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kasia
>
>
No, there is no
Excerpts from Kasia Tuszynska's message of mar ago 10 15:08:20 -0400 2010:
> Hello Postgres Gurus,
>
> Is it expected behavior for the has_table_privilege postgres function to not
> handle the user PUBLIC? Or should I submit a bug?
>
> The has_table_privilege function does not handle PUBLIC - th
Szymon,
The PUBLIC role is a default, non login role, that is created with every
postgres cluster/instance.
To my knowledge PUBLIC is a standard user in any rdbms. So, existence of
public is not the issue here.
Sincerely,
Kasia
From: Szymon Guz [mailto:mabew...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August
2010/8/10 Kasia Tuszynska
> Hello Postgres Gurus,
>
>
>
> Is it expected behavior for the has_table_privilege postgres function to
> not handle the user PUBLIC? Or should I submit a bug?
>
>
>
> The has_table_privilege function does not handle PUBLIC – the following
> queries returns the error:
Hello Postgres Gurus,
Is it expected behavior for the has_table_privilege postgres function to not
handle the user PUBLIC? Or should I submit a bug?
The has_table_privilege function does not handle PUBLIC - the following queries
returns the error:
SELECT has_table_privilege ('PUBLIC','bob.gdb.t
Gaurav Singh wrote:
> The Postgres server is up and running but when I call psql it
> gives fatal error saying "password authentication failed for user
> singh09721".
You are probably not specifying a database user ID for psql to use,
so it is defaulting to your OS login ID. Do you get in if
Hello Community,
I recently installed Postgres Plus 8.4.4 on Windows 7 32-bit machine.
The Postgres server is up and running but when I call psql it gives fatal error
saying "password authentication failed for user singh09721".
I am new to this database. Can someone please help me.
Thanks in ad
Craig James wrote:
> If you have a slow network, then run pg_dump on the machine where
> the database lives and use compression (--format=c) and restore
> using pg_restore. It will cut WAY down on the amount of data that
> has to move across the net.
If you don't mind dancing around a bit you
On 8/9/10 5:14 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
ENGEMANN, DAYSE wrote:
Hi Kevin,
Sorry to disturb you.. But I am really new in it...
Let me see if I understood...
pg_dump -h sourcemachine -U sourceuser source_dbname | psql target_dbname
Has anyone done any measurement of whether it is faster to do
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> ENGEMANN, DAYSE wrote:
>> pg_dump -h sourcemachine -U sourceuser source_dbname \
>> | psql target_dbname
>
> Has anyone done any measurement of whether it is faster to do the
> dump on the local machine with psql remote or from a remote
> machine (where psql would be l
21 matches
Mail list logo
