Bryan Henderson wrote:
>
> > NOTICE: Index error_interface_idx: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (226766)
> > IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (226765)
> ...
> > NOTICE: Index pg_class_relname_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (74)
> > IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (75)
> ...
> >IIRC, I think the prob
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Andrzej Mazurkiewicz wrote:
> >> And what is MATCH FULL?
> > [Andrzej Mazurkiewicz] I would not like to speculate perhaps
> >somebody else knows exact answer.
>
> MATCH FULL:
> Either all referencing columns must be null, or all must have values.
>
> MATCH PART
> NOTICE: Index error_interface_idx: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (226766)
> IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (226765)
...
> NOTICE: Index pg_class_relname_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (74)
> IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (75)
...
>IIRC, I think the problem and solution is basically the same:
>...the client IP address is assigned dynamically.
>
>That being the case, how does one set up access / security in the
>pg_hba.conf file (since it requires ip addresses)?
It doesn't require IP addresses unless you want to limit access by IP
address. And since your users don't have predictable I
> > Does somebody know some REALLY working accounting or inventory system on LAN
> > (not via Internet)??? - where server is PostgreSQL .Because I have feeling that
>PostgreSQL
> > is used only with regards to Internet.
Sure, Kontor... it's GPLed and picking up steam! Go pick up a copy here:
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I think that I wasn't as clear as I
could be. This table is normalized and as far as I understand, what I'm
doing with it is not extraordinary. The schema is basically...
CREATE TABLE info (
lastname char(50),
street_name char(50),
street_number char(5),
JB wrote:
> I have a 50 MB +- table in postgres. The data is normalized so there's
> not much I can do about the size. The tuples are about 512 bytes so
> there's a pile of 'em. I need searching on of several fields, a couple
> in particular are text fields that needs 'LIKE'. The problem is, the
Ron Chmara wrote:
> running security off of names would be much slower, as each session had
> to waste time on name lookups rather than just mapping to the address.
I'm starting to understand the issues involved. Thank you for explaining that.
Your other reply and that of Alfred Perlstein become
Ron Chmara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> running security off of names would be much slower, as each session had
> to waste time on name lookups rather than just mapping to the address.
Another note: Many programs which implement host-based ACLs seem to
just do a reverse lookup on the IP of the
