Full error message from earlier in the thread:
> psql:scripts/insert-addrs.sql:488: ERROR: syntax error at or near ";"
> LINE 488: ...2832,1,default,'85250 Red House Rd','Paisley','OR','97636');
> ^
The error:
>
> LINE
> Is there a problem with the installation of 8.1? I’ve installed it 3
times but when I bring it up it still says I’m at 7.8. The Help > About
menu shows 7.8 as well.
> It’s odd because I have gone from 7.6 to 7.7 and 7.7 to 7.8 following the
same steps.
When I look at the directory on my
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 2:32 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig McIlwee writes:
> > Most discussions regarding the lock table say that the size of the lock
> > table determines how many locks can be held. The documentation for
> > max_locks_per_transaction [3] reads slig
We're using PostgreSQL 13.10, installed on CentOS 7 from PGDG RPMs.
Recently we've run into "out of shared memory" issues with a hint at
increasing max_locks_per_transaction. The problem is well described in the
PostgreSQL documentation and various blog posts found around the internet,
and the
> for some reason the postgresql jar is not in the classpath.
This is due to the way that Tomcat loads drivers, which is documented at
[1]. In short, the JDBC driver should be placed in the tomcat/lib
directory and removed from the application's WEB-INF/lib directory. After
doing that, I was
>
> I know that on my Mac the tables are kept in the data directory
>> /Users/martinmueller/Library/Application Support/Postgres/var-13. If I go
>> there I see that internally the tables have numbers. Somewhere in the
>> system there must be a table that maps the name I gave to table X to the
I know that on my Mac the tables are kept in the data directory
> /Users/martinmueller/Library/Application Support/Postgres/var-13. If I go
> there I see that internally the tables have numbers. Somewhere in the
> system there must be a table that maps the name I gave to table X to the
>
(replying to the entire list instead of Bruce only this time...)
> This doesn't make sense to me. Since we hard-linked, why would 12 be so
> much smaller? If it was symlinks, I could imaging that, but it doesn't
> use symlinks, just hard links, so it should be similar. Please look at
> the
-+
2020-12-17 11:44:51.192119 | 2020-12-17 11:45:03.881409
Execution 2:
min |max
+----
2020-12-17 11:44:59.943108 | 2020-12-17 11:45:14.273185
min of execution 2 is old
Hello,
Our application uses a queue-like table to assign tasks to users and this
has worked well for us for a few years. Now we are in the process of
adding some restrictions to which tasks a user can work on and that is
based on an attribute of each task that does not change for the task's
10 matches
Mail list logo
