Can't Remote connection by IpV6

Hi everyone, is it possible to remote connect through IpV6? IpV4 works fine but I cant connect through V6 postgresql.conf is to listen all address and pg_hba.conf is set with host all all :: md5 i've tried ::/0 and ::0/0 but had no success my provider is out of ipv4 and they're sending ips by

Re: Yum Update nothing provides libarmadillo.so.12()(64bit) needed by gdal36-libs-3.6.4-6PGDG.rhel9.x86_64 from pgdg-common

gdal-libs package belongs to PostGIS PostGIS Support Ticket #5664 - https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/5664#ticket On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 10:12 AM Marcelo Marques wrote: > I appreciate the reply. > We have an internal Satellite that we pull from the EPEL repo. > The Satell

Re: Yum Update nothing provides libarmadillo.so.12()(64bit) needed by gdal36-libs-3.6.4-6PGDG.rhel9.x86_64 from pgdg-common

 AM Devrim Gündüz wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 08:16 -0800, Marcelo Marques wrote: > > Yes, the EPEL repo is enabled. > > (Please keep the list CC'ed) > > Armadillo 12 packages *are* in the EPEL repo: > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/9/Everyth

Re: Yum Update nothing provides libarmadillo.so.12()(64bit) needed by gdal36-libs-3.6.4-6PGDG.rhel9.x86_64 from pgdg-common

BUG #18328: yum update nothing provides libarmadillo.so.12()(64bit) needed by gdal36-libs-3.6.4-6PGDG.rhel9.x86 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18328-1e16fac373918f71%40postgresql.org> On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 11:05 AM Marcelo Marques wrote: > *PROBLEM* > > *yum update n

Yum Update nothing provides libarmadillo.so.12()(64bit) needed by gdal36-libs-3.6.4-6PGDG.rhel9.x86_64 from pgdg-common

Oct 17 04:10 pgdg-redhat-all.repo.old -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 4657 Jan 31 16:09 redhat.repo [root@rhel9-pg14 ~]# Thanks, Marcelo Marques Principal Product Engineer, Esri, www.esri.com

Re: Re: Problem enabling LDAP login

Thank you joão, that solved the problem!

Problem enabling LDAP login

I'm having some trouble configuring ldap login to postgres. I have configured LDAP on pg_hba.conf and postgres picks up the correct configuration during login but I get an error message whenever I attempt to login with psql to a database named teste. psql: error: could not connect to server:

Clarification on the release notes of postgresql 12 regarding pg_upgrade

There are a few instances where the release notes seem to indicate that the administrator should use pg_dump to upgrade a database so that improvements on btree can be available. Here are they: 1. >In new btree indexes, the maximum index entry length is reduced by eight bytes, to improve

In-depth commercial postgresql training

Our company is looking for commercial training in postgresql. We want a training option that's as in-depth as possible (going as far as being able to read and patch postgresql source code). Is there any company that offers something like that? Another important thing to mention is that due to

Re: ORM

On 29/09/2018 16:09 , Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter wrote: Em 28/09/2018 19:49, marcelo escreveu: For a new big and convoluted project I (am/was) using Devart´s LinqConnect as ORM. But today I experienced some inexplicable "object reference not set to an instance of an object"

Re: ORM

On 28/09/2018 21:39 , Adrian Klaver wrote: On 9/28/18 3:49 PM, marcelo wrote: For a new big and convoluted project I (am/was) using Devart´s LinqConnect as ORM. But today I experienced some inexplicable "object reference not set to an instance of an object" exceptions or other mor

ORM

For a new big and convoluted project I (am/was) using Devart´s LinqConnect as ORM. But today I experienced some inexplicable "object reference not set to an instance of an object" exceptions or other more specific to this libraries. I would wish to change the ORM. Some experiences would be

Re: Select into table%ROWTYPE failed

Ohh, you are right! Thank you! On 18/09/2018 14:10 , Tom Lane wrote: marcelo writes: What was wrong in the first approach? plpgsql's "SELECT INTO" expects a one-for-one match between the output columns of the SELECT and the columns of the INTO destination. So I'd expect some

Select into table%ROWTYPE failed

I´m testing a trigger function in a 9.4 installation. It´s for bill number assignation, but with a twist: there are various numbering ranges. This ranges are defined by a text code, a minimum and maximum. Every bill have some code taken from the set defined in a specific table

Re: Logical locking beyond pg_advisory

On 17/09/2018 14:27 , Chris Travers wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:04 PM marcelo <mailto:marcelo.nico...@gmail.com>> wrote: I´m using an ORM (Devart´s) to access the database, so, I cannot "select ... FOR UPDATE". The application paradigm is that a u

Re: Logical locking beyond pg_advisory

On 17/09/2018 12:21 , Chris Travers wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:09 PM Merlin Moncure <mailto:mmonc...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 3:53 PM marcelo mailto:marcelo.nico...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I need a mechanism of "logical

Re: Logical locking beyond pg_advisory

e the id was xored. I tested five or six table names, along 2 ids every one, without collision. But... Of course, I need the "full table lock" for inserts. So, it´s a very separated concern with updates and deletions. But... TIA On 17/09/2018 03:19 , Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:

Logical locking beyond pg_advisory

I need a mechanism of "logical locking" more ductile than the pg_advisory family. I'm thinking of a table ("lock_table") that would be part of the database, with columns * tablename varchar - name of the table "locked" * rowid integer, - id of the row "locked" * ownerid varchar, - identifier of

Re: check_function_bodies not doing much

t for the validation of whether a change to the structure of the database breaks the APIs that the database exposes. On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:44 PM Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:31 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Marcelo Lacerda writes: > > > I was trying to

check_function_bodies not doing much

I was trying to get postgres to warn me that I'm referencing a table that it doesn't exists inside a function so I was told on the IRC to check the setting "check_function_bodies", however when I use it in a plpgsql function it doesn't actually check if the tables in the body exist. Is this the

Re: Strange behavior with missing column in SQL function

> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION myfunction(myrow mytable) > RETURNS INTEGER AS $$ > SELECT myrow.c + myrow.b FROM myrow; > $$ LANGUAGE sql; > where "myrow" is a table with a different set of column names from > "mytable". The existing behavior for that is to seek the column name > in "myrow"

Strange behavior with missing column in SQL function

Here's the code that reproduces the behavior: http://paste.debian.net/1035412/ I have already discussed this in the IRC channel but there doesn't seem to be a consensus on whether this is a bug here's a brief transcript of RhodiumToad's opinion: > this isn't new, goes back to 9.1 at least >

Re: Do we need yet another IDE (SQL development assistant) for PostgreSQL?

For windows platforms only, there is https://www.sqlmanager.net/products/postgresql/manager/ which in Lite version is free. I use it near daily and works like a charm. On 15/07/2018 16:08 , Dmitry Igrishin wrote: Thank you all for your responses! Okay, if I decide to start this project, the

Re: Enforce primary key on every table during dev?

On 02/03/2018 01:10 , Daevor The Devoted wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:05 AM, Gavin Flower > wrote: On 02/03/18 06:47, Daevor The Devoted wrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Rakesh Kumar

Re: Enforce primary key on every table during dev?

On 01/03/2018 19:05 , Gavin Flower wrote: On 02/03/18 06:47, Daevor The Devoted wrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Rakesh Kumar > wrote:     >Adding a surrogate key to such a table just adds overhead,     although that could be

Re: Enforce primary key on every table during dev?

On 01/03/2018 18:41 , Adrian Klaver wrote: On 03/01/2018 01:26 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 03/01/2018 03:14 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: On 03/01/2018 01:03 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 03/01/2018 02:32 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: There's always the "account number", which is usually synthetic.

Re: Enforce primary key on every table during dev?

On 01/03/2018 17:32 , David G. Johnston wrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Ron Johnson >wrote: Why have the overhead of a second unique index?  If it's "ease of joins", then I agree with Francisco Olarte and use the business

Re: Enforce primary key on every table during dev?

On 01/03/2018 17:21 , Ron Johnson wrote: On 03/01/2018 02:08 PM, marcelo wrote: On 01/03/2018 16:42 , Ron Johnson wrote: On 03/01/2018 01:11 PM, marcelo wrote: On 01/03/2018 16:00 , Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] If your only unique index is a synthetic key, then you can insert the same

Re: Enforce primary key on every table during dev?

On 01/03/2018 16:42 , Ron Johnson wrote: On 03/01/2018 01:11 PM, marcelo wrote: On 01/03/2018 16:00 , Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] If your only unique index is a synthetic key, then you can insert the same "business data" multiple times with different synthetic keys. -- Angula

Re: Enforce primary key on every table during dev?

On 01/03/2018 16:00 , Ron Johnson wrote: On 03/01/2018 12:32 PM, Daevor The Devoted wrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Ron Johnson > wrote: On 03/01/2018 11:47 AM, Daevor The Devoted wrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:07 PM,

pg_dump and logging

When pg_dump runs on a database, is it warranted that the log is fully impacted, or at least, taken into account for the dumping? TIA