Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > but once made it'll be out there > somewhere on the Web until cockroaches rule the earth. Hate to deviate away from the topic, but couldn't resist sorry. I had watched this episode of Mythbusters, and they have busted th

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 01:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think it's funny to consider a specific recommendation for SQLite as > > being out of line when you look at the history here. The whole reason > > that software even exists is because of the difficu

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 01:25:35 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've got nothing against SQLite. But I am unhappy with the idea of us > recommending *any* particular bit of software that is not under our > control, especially in a document that is as widespread and hard to > update as ou

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think it's funny to consider a specific recommendation for SQLite as > being out of line when you look at the history here. The whole reason > that software even exists is because of the difficulty of using PostgreSQL > in this context. See http://www

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

I think it's funny to consider a specific recommendation for SQLite as being out of line when you look at the history here. The whole reason that software even exists is because of the difficulty of using PostgreSQL in this context. See http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6650 With that in m

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:40:24 -0800 David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I still think it is good to name a few places to start the research on > embedded SQL DBMSs rather than leave people with the feeling of, "It's > all up to you from here. Go away." Well let's start the +/- +1 on wordin

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 10:53:07AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:30:43 -0800 > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I believe there is wording that could be used that would not > > convey that sentiment. > > Such as: > > PostgreSQL is designed as a client /

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:17:17 -0300 Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > PostgreSQL is designed as a client / server architecture and does > > not normally embed in an optimal way. Discussion of other product > > solutions to the embedded problem is outside the scope of this > > document. >

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:30:43 -0800 > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I believe there is wording that could be used that would not convey > > that sentiment. > > Such as: > > PostgreSQL is designed as a client / server architecture and does not > normal

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:30:43 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe there is wording that could be used that would not convey > that sentiment. Such as: PostgreSQL is designed as a client / server architecture and does not normally embed in an optimal way. Discussion of o

Re: [DOCS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #3965: UNIQUE constraint fails on long column values

Gurjeet Singh wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Part of the problem is we don't know the length --- it is the compressed > > > length that is limited, I think to 8k. > > > > That's a problem, and the

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:25:00 -0800 David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's good to explain why PG does what it does how it does it, and that > should be in that section of the FAQ, but continuing, even by silence, > with an answer equivalent to, "We don't do that. You shouldn't > either. T

Re: [DOCS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #3965: UNIQUE constraint fails on long column values

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Part of the problem is we don't know the length --- it is the compressed > > length that is limited, I think to 8k. > > That's a problem, and the length limit is different for diffe

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:56:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:35:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> If we need a FAQ entry on this at all, I'd stop after David's > >> first two sentences. > > > Stopping there seems like a very bad

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:35:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> If we need a FAQ entry on this at all, I'd stop after David's first >> two sentences. > Stopping there seems like a very bad idea from a public relations > point of view. Pointing to an alterna

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:41:26 -0800 David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stopping there seems like a very bad idea from a public relations > point of view. Making the suggestion generic and naming several FLOSS > DBs as an alternative might work better. IMO, entries last forever, for years an

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:35:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Richard Huxton wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian wrote: > > David Fetter wrote: > >>> If you really need to embed an > >>> SQL engine in a binary, consider the excellent > >>> http://www.sqlite.org/";>

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Richard Huxton wrote: >> Bruce Momjian wrote: > David Fetter wrote: >>> If you really need to embed an >>> SQL engine in a binary, consider the excellent >>> http://www.sqlite.org/";>SQLite >> >> or http://http://www.firebirdsql.org/";>Firebird >> > for

Re: [DOCS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #3965: UNIQUE constraint fails on long column values

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Part of the problem is we don't know the length --- it is the compressed > length that is limited, I think to 8k. That's a problem, and the length limit is different for different index types. So you're really not going to be able to say anything very s

Re: [DOCS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #3965: UNIQUE constraint fails on long column values

Phil Frost wrote: > On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:20 , Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > Does anyone think it is a good idea to document that our indexes > > cannot > > index arbirarily-long strings? I see nothing in the documentation now > > about it. > > +1 > > I never even knew. I'd be especially int

Re: [DOCS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #3965: UNIQUE constraint fails on long column values

On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:20 , Bruce Momjian wrote: Does anyone think it is a good idea to document that our indexes cannot index arbirarily-long strings? I see nothing in the documentation now about it. +1 I never even knew. I'd be especially interested to hear about details, like how lon

[DOCS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #3965: UNIQUE constraint fails on long column values

Does anyone think it is a good idea to document that our indexes cannot index arbirarily-long strings? I see nothing in the documentation now about it. --- Juho Saarikko wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PR

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

Richard Huxton wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Richard Huxton wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> David Fetter wrote: > If you really need to embed an > SQL engine in a binary, consider the excellent > http://www.sqlite.org/";>SQLite > >> or http://http://www.firebirdsql.org/";>

Re: [DOCS] Documenting a DB schema

On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:02:27PM -0800, Shahaf Abileah wrote: > I'm looking for a systematic way to document the schema for the database > behind our website (www.redfin.com ), so that > the developers using this database have a better idea what all the > tables and colum

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

Bruce Momjian wrote: Richard Huxton wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: David Fetter wrote: If you really need to embed an SQL engine in a binary, consider the excellent http://www.sqlite.org/";>SQLite or http://http://www.firebirdsql.org/";>Firebird for the purpose. Just to be fair. sqlite seem

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

Richard Huxton wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > David Fetter wrote: > >> If you really need to embed an > >> SQL engine in a binary, consider the excellent > >> http://www.sqlite.org/";>SQLite > > or http://http://www.firebirdsql.org/";>Firebird > > >> for the purpose. > > Just to be fair. sql

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

Bruce Momjian wrote: David Fetter wrote: If you really need to embed an SQL engine in a binary, consider the excellent http://www.sqlite.org/";>SQLite or http://http://www.firebirdsql.org/";>Firebird for the purpose. Just to be fair. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd -- Sent via pgsql-d

Re: [DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

David Fetter wrote: > Folks, > > I just got yet another question about embedding Postgres in a binary. > What should be in the FAQ on this subject? Here's what I have so far: > > Q: How can I embed PostgreSQL in a binary? > > A: You can't. PostgreSQL is designed from the ground up to run as

[DOCS] FAQ on Embedding Postgres

Folks, I just got yet another question about embedding Postgres in a binary. What should be in the FAQ on this subject? Here's what I have so far: Q: How can I embed PostgreSQL in a binary? A: You can't. PostgreSQL is designed from the ground up to run as a separate set of processes on a ser