*** Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [14:45 Mon 23.Dec]:
> Radoslaw Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > and one more suggestion, as this feature is a little bit to strong IMHO.
>
> > Common practice for such files (private keys) is to make them owned by
> &g
*** Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [13:42 Mon 23.Dec]:
> > > > -rw-r--r--1 postgres postgres 3223 Dec 18 17:10 server.crt
> > > > -rw-r--r--1 postgres postgres 887 Dec 18 17:10 server.key
> > >
> > > I think it wants the private key file to be mode 600 or less --- a
> > > world-
postgresql.init script contains line:
if [ `cat $PGDATA/PG_VERSION` != '7.2' ]
while it of course should be:
if [ `cat $PGDATA/PG_VERSION` != '7.3' ]
.radek.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/read
*** Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Thursday, 30.May.2002, 18:04 -0400]:
> > of course this memory removal of cached index blocks is caused by normal
> > queries and their memory (buffer) requirements, but certainly algorithm
> > which chose which buffer to remove is a very ineffective on index bloc
hello,
i have medium sized database ( about 1mln records) served by p2-300 with
64M ram and ide disk. after upgrading to 7.2 version i started to use
pg_stat_* tables to optimize performance, and noticed very strange
thing.
looks like that shared_buffers (which during these tests i tweaked from
Examples:
mlot=# create temp table ( t1 time,t2 timetz );
CREATE
mlot=# insert into values ( now() , now() );
ERROR: column "t1" is of type 'time without time zone' but expression is of type
'timestamp with time zone'
You will need to rewrite or cast the expression
ok, i know
OK, once more post about the subject, because after some investigation
it looks like a real and serious postgres bug. (7.1.3)
table definition with one (from many) columns:
timestamp | timestamp with time zone | not null default timeofday()
and the query:
db=# select timestamp,extract( s
*** Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Tuesday, 09.January.2001, 18:50 +0100]:
> > This is one of the features of PgSQL that I do not
> > like. It is much nicer to type:
> > "grant all on database.table to ."
> > And I asked the developers to do that but they did not
> > take it very seriou
