Re: [GENERAL] Startup process thrashing

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Phillip Berry wrote: I'm not running PITR and checkpoint_segments is set to 100 as this is home to a very write intensive app. That's weird then. It shouldn't ever keep around more than 201 WAL segments. I've heard one report of a similarly mysterious excess of them, f

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle setting

Hi, Am 11.12.2008 2:23 Uhr schrieb "Fujii Masao" unter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I'm running pg 8.3.3 on Mac OS 10.4.11 and I'm seeing the same behaviour as >> Henry. >> I'm trying to find out if Mac OS belongs to those platforms that doesn't >> allow adjustment of the TCP keepalive parameters from

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 21:39 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 20:41 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Tim Uckun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Log shipping doesn't

Re: [GENERAL] Multi-table CHECK constraint

> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 05:58:08PM -0600, Jason Long wrote: > > I need to add some complex constraints at the DB. > > > > For example. > > > > Do not allow a line item of inventory to be changed if it does not > > result in the same number of joints originally shipped. > > > > These will involve

Re: [GENERAL] Startup process thrashing

Hi Greg, I appreciate the reply. Fortunately within the last 10 minutes it has finished the recovery...and then promptly shut itself down again. The exact error is in fact: FATAL: database is not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss in database "aim" 2008-12-10 06:00:02 CST [213

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 20:41 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Tim Uckun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Log shipping doesn't really lends itself to switching back and forth >> between masters

Re: [GENERAL] Startup process thrashing

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Phillip Berry wrote: I've got a bit of a problem. It started last night when postgres (8.1.9) went down citing the need for a vacuum full to be done due to the transaction log needing to wraparound. Not exactly. What it said was "To avoid a database shutdown, execute a

Re: [GENERAL] The future of Solaris?

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Liraz Siri wrote: Linux may still be behind Solaris in a few areas but I'll wager Linux will catch up and make Solaris completely, utterly obsolete in the not too distant future. Great, free money is even better than free code; how much would you like to loo...er, wager

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 20:41 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Tim Uckun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Log shipping doesn't really lends itself to switching back and forth > between masters and slaves. Really? It seems to me that you can make a base backup just as fast

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Tim Uckun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> You have to run a new base backup and have the slave ship logs to the >> master. > > Mmmm. Does this backup have to be a full backup? What if your database > is very large? Yes. Your backup is very large. > I am hoping t

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

> > You have to run a new base backup and have the slave ship logs to the > master. Mmmm. Does this backup have to be a full backup? What if your database is very large? I am hoping to get a setup which is similar to SQL server mirroring. It uses a witness server to keep track of who got what "lo

[GENERAL] Startup process thrashing

Hello Everyone, I've got a bit of a problem. It started last night when postgres (8.1.9) went down citing the need for a vacuum full to be done due to the transaction log needing to wraparound. So I stopped the server, logged in using a standalone backend and started a vacuum full analyze on

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 15:21 +1300, Tim Uckun wrote: > What happens when I bring the primary back on line. I now want this to > be primary again and catch up on all the transactions that were sent > to the secondary. I want the secondary to resume it's backup status. > You have to run a new base

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM, David Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We've done warm standby as you indicate, and we've not needed anything > special. Thanks for sharing your configuation. I have one additional question thought... How do you handle the reverting? For example. Say I have a p

Re: [GENERAL] Ubuntu for servers (was TurnKey PostgreSQL)

Joshua D. Drake wrote: BSD is dying. We all are, sooner or later ;) -- Guy Rouillier -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle setting

Hi, On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Maximilian Tyrtania <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > recently Tom Lane wrote: > > "henry" writes: >>> I have tried setting tcp_keepalives_idle = 120 (eg), then restarting PG, >>> but SHOW ALL; shows tcp_keepalives_idle=0 (ignoring my setting). > >>Just FYI,

Re: [GENERAL] Multi-table CHECK constraint

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 05:58:08PM -0600, Jason Long wrote: > I need to add some complex constraints at the DB. > > For example. > > Do not allow a line item of inventory to be changed if it does not > result in the same number of joints originally shipped. > > These will involve several tables.

Re: [GENERAL] Multi-table CHECK constraint

Richard Broersma wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Jason Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I need to add some complex constraints at the DB. These will involve several tables. What is the best approach for this? Well ANSI-SQL provides the CREATE ASSERTION for this purpose. However

Re: [GENERAL] Multi-table CHECK constraint

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Jason Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I need to add some complex constraints at the DB. > These will involve several tables. > What is the best approach for this? Well ANSI-SQL provides the CREATE ASSERTION for this purpose. However, PostgreSQL doesn't support t

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

We've done warm standby as you indicate, and we've not needed anything special. On the primary's postgresql.conf we use: archive_command = '~/postgresql/bin/copyWAL "%p" "%f"' Our copyWAL script is just a wrapper for 'scp' since we want to copy the data encrypted over the network: #!/bin/ba

[GENERAL] Multi-table CHECK constraint

I need to add some complex constraints at the DB. For example. Do not allow a line item of inventory to be changed if it does not result in the same number of joints originally shipped. These will involve several tables. What is the best approach for this? Here is what I have been trying.

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:45 -0500, Rutherdale, Will wrote: > Thanks, Joshua. > > As I mentioned to Steve, warm standby / log shipping seems to be the > main feature I'm looking for. > > The PITR solution you mention: is that an improvement over regular log > shipping? Or do I misunderstand wher

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

Thanks, Joshua. As I mentioned to Steve, warm standby / log shipping seems to be the main feature I'm looking for. The PITR solution you mention: is that an improvement over regular log shipping? Or do I misunderstand where that fits into the system? -Will -Original Message- From: Jo

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:34 -0500, Rutherdale, Will wrote: > Thanks very much, Steve. > > The main (but not only) type of data replication activity I'm interested > in right now would be the warm standby. Thus it appears from the > documents you showed me that log shipping is one solution current

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

Thanks very much, Steve. The main (but not only) type of data replication activity I'm interested in right now would be the warm standby. Thus it appears from the documents you showed me that log shipping is one solution currently available in PostgreSQL. I would want to make this work between g

Re: [GENERAL] Ubuntu for servers (was TurnKey PostgreSQL)

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 15:55 -0500, Eric Schwarzenbach wrote: > > Robert Treat wrote: > > > On Tuesday 09 December 2008 19:43:02 Liraz Siri wrote: > > > > > >> Greg has a good point. Ubuntu is a bit of a moving target. In

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 17:18 -0500, Rutherdale, Will wrote: > Hi. > > I am trying to determine what kind of data replication is currently > available in PostgreSQL. This is for purposes of examining capabilities > of PostgreSQL as compared to other RDBMSs. > > I attempted some searches in various

Re: [GENERAL] Data Replication

On Dec 10, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Rutherdale, Will wrote: Hi. I am trying to determine what kind of data replication is currently available in PostgreSQL. This is for purposes of examining capabilities of PostgreSQL as compared to other RDBMSs. I attempted some searches in various areas and ca

[GENERAL] Data Replication

Hi. I am trying to determine what kind of data replication is currently available in PostgreSQL. This is for purposes of examining capabilities of PostgreSQL as compared to other RDBMSs. I attempted some searches in various areas and came up with a bewildering array of results but no clear answe

[GENERAL] When to hold Pg East

Hello, While I am currently negotiating where to hold Pg East, it would be great if we could get some community to help us determine WHEN to hold Pg East. There is a very short survey (four or five questions) over at: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/2009/east/ If I could get responses to it

Re: [GENERAL] Ubuntu for servers (was TurnKey PostgreSQL)

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 15:55 -0500, Eric Schwarzenbach wrote: > Robert Treat wrote: > > On Tuesday 09 December 2008 19:43:02 Liraz Siri wrote: > > > >> Greg has a good point. Ubuntu is a bit of a moving target. In contrast, > >> Debian has a much slower release cycle than Ubuntu and is thus > >>

Re: [GENERAL] Getting text into a table

2008/12/11 Mark Morgan Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I wonder if I could ask a question which might be marginally off-topic: how > do people assemble multiple lines of text into a row in a table? > > I've got a number of cases where I've got a file containing some sort of > activity log, where a seq

Re: [GENERAL] Ubuntu for servers (was TurnKey PostgreSQL)

Robert Treat wrote: > On Tuesday 09 December 2008 19:43:02 Liraz Siri wrote: > >> Greg has a good point. Ubuntu is a bit of a moving target. In contrast, >> Debian has a much slower release cycle than Ubuntu and is thus >> considered by many people to be preferable for production server >> appli

Re: [GENERAL] The future of Solaris?

Damian Carey wrote: > I understand and accept that this is just your opinion, but its sheer > dripping passion tends to highlight its lack objectivity! > "and make Solaris completely, utterly obsolete in the not too distant future". For what it's worth, I really like Solaris. I wish Linux had dtr

Re: [GENERAL] The future of Solaris?

what is this single point of failure? have you submitted the bug to a JIRA or bugzilla to address this? http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-0552/gbfdy?a=view If the patch was not in latest distro http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-0552/apa-sparc-23587?a=view then when will it be scheduled i

Re: [GENERAL] The future of Solaris?

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Emanuel Calvo Franco > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:27 AM > To: Liraz Siri; General PostgreSQL List > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] The future of Solaris? > > 2008/12/10 Liraz Siri <[EM

Re: [GENERAL] The future of Solaris?

2008/12/10 Liraz Siri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Guy Rouillier wrote: >> Liraz Siri wrote: >>> Solaris is awesome (dtrace rocks!), but I still prefer Debian/Linux for >>> the same reasons I prefer PostgreSQL over MySQL - its lack of dependence >>> on any single company. >> >> OpenSolaris? >> > > I thin

Re: [GENERAL] The future of Solaris?

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Liraz Siri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guy Rouillier wrote: >> Liraz Siri wrote: >>> Solaris is awesome (dtrace rocks!), but I still prefer Debian/Linux for >>> the same reasons I prefer PostgreSQL over MySQL - its lack of dependence >>> on any single company. >> >

[GENERAL] The future of Solaris?

Guy Rouillier wrote: > Liraz Siri wrote: >> Solaris is awesome (dtrace rocks!), but I still prefer Debian/Linux for >> the same reasons I prefer PostgreSQL over MySQL - its lack of dependence >> on any single company. > > OpenSolaris? > I think it takes more than a license to make a true communi

Re: [GENERAL] Ubuntu for servers (was TurnKey PostgreSQL)

2008/12/10 Liraz Siri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Robert Treat wrote: >> On Tuesday 09 December 2008 19:43:02 Liraz Siri wrote: >>> Greg has a good point. Ubuntu is a bit of a moving target. In contrast, >>> Debian has a much slower release cycle than Ubuntu and is thus >>> considered by many people to

Re: [GENERAL] quit milis

Tonny Sapri, 10.12.2008 09:12: I want quit milis postgresql. What are quit milis? -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] IN limit

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Said Ramirez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Is there a limit to the number of entries I can pass in an IN clause as part >> of a SELECT statement? As in >> SELECT baz FROM foo where id in (

Re: [GENERAL] IN limit

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Said Ramirez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a limit to the number of entries I can pass in an IN clause as part > of a SELECT statement? As in > SELECT baz FROM foo where id in ( 1, 2,... ) ; I think it's high enough you'd have performance problems before i

Re: [GENERAL] Ubuntu for servers (was TurnKey PostgreSQL)

Liraz Siri wrote: Solaris is awesome (dtrace rocks!), but I still prefer Debian/Linux for the same reasons I prefer PostgreSQL over MySQL - its lack of dependence on any single company. OpenSolaris? -- Guy Rouillier -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make

[GENERAL] IN limit

Is there a limit to the number of entries I can pass in an IN clause as part of a SELECT statement? As in SELECT baz FROM foo where id in ( 1, 2,... ) ; Thanks, -Said -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgre

Re: [GENERAL] c function - undefined symbols

Steffn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks for your reply. Yes, thats also my suspicion. But what library to > include? There is no library to include --- you need to be building *your* code as a library that can be loaded into the Postgres backend, which will supply the missing function. This

Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.6 -> 8.1.11: syntax error at or near "OWNED BY"

"Alexander Farber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've pg_dump'ed a database from PostgreSQL 8.2.6 / openSUSE 10.3 > and now trying to load it as a "postgres" user at 8.1.1 / CentOS 5.2 > and get numerous errors like: In general there is no promise that you can load pg_dump output into previous ser

Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.6 -> 8.1.11: syntax error at or near "OWNED BY"

Hello, On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We run pgsql 8.3 on Centos 5.2 and are VERY happy with the PGDG rpms on it. > thanks for the confirmation Scott. I have installed PGDG with pgsql 8.2 at my CentOS 5.2 server and it seems to work now. I hope any upd

Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.6 -> 8.1.11: syntax error at or near "OWNED BY"

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Alexander Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you for replies, I've decided to upgrade by adding > http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/ to the yum config at my CentOS server > way to go! -- GJ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) T

Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.6 -> 8.1.11: syntax error at or near "OWNED BY"

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Alexander Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you for replies, I've decided to upgrade by adding > http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/ to the yum config at my CentOS server We run pgsql 8.3 on Centos 5.2 and are VERY happy with the PGDG rpms on it. -- Sent via pgsql-

Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.6 -> 8.1.11: syntax error at or near "OWNED BY"

Thank you for replies, I've decided to upgrade by adding http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/ to the yum config at my CentOS server -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Favorite Tom Lane quotes

Robert Treat wrote: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-04/msg00288.php I remember after reading this post wondering whether Tom uses caffeinated soap... Reading that link, I'm reminded of the "tertiary storage" code that somebody (at UCB?) grafted onto the PostgreSQL server.

Re: [GENERAL] disallow updates on column or whole table

Don't change thread subjects, it confuses people. Start a new thread if you have a new topic. In response to Peter Billen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > What is the best way to disallow updates on a column of a table, or even > on a whole table itself? > > I can write a BEFORE UPDATE trigger which

Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.6 -> 8.1.11: syntax error at or near "OWNED BY"

you should have dump it using pg_dump from 8.1.X. Plus, I don't think going back is a good idea. There is 8.3 available for centos, use it. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.6 -> 8.1.11: syntax error at or near "OWNED BY"

In response to Alexander Farber : > Does anybody please know what's wrong here > (some new syntax introduced in 8.2.x)? Right. > And what could I do to workaround it Update your server or edit the dump. Andreas -- Andreas Kretschmer Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47150, D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr:

Re: [GENERAL] 8.2.6 -> 8.1.11: syntax error at or near "OWNED BY"

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Alexander Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I've pg_dump'ed a database from PostgreSQL 8.2.6 / openSUSE 10.3 > and now trying to load it as a "postgres" user at 8.1.1 / CentOS 5.2 > and get numerous errors like: That's not directly supported. The othe

[GENERAL] 8.2.6 -> 8.1.11: syntax error at or near "OWNED BY"

Hello, I've pg_dump'ed a database from PostgreSQL 8.2.6 / openSUSE 10.3 and now trying to load it as a "postgres" user at 8.1.1 / CentOS 5.2 and get numerous errors like: CREATE TABLE ALTER TABLE CREATE SEQUENCE ALTER TABLE psql:denkwerk.sql:1156: ERROR: syntax error at or near "OWNED" at charac

Re: [GENERAL] c function - undefined symbols

Steffn wrote: > I am currently trying my first steps in writing my own functions in C. I > read through the documentation and tried the most simple examples as shown in > . Sadly > this was already the point where I stumbled. I luckily comp

[GENERAL] Getting text into a table

I wonder if I could ask a question which might be marginally off-topic: how do people assemble multiple lines of text into a row in a table? I've got a number of cases where I've got a file containing some sort of activity log, where a sequence of activities extends over multiple lines. In so

Re: [GENERAL] c function - undefined symbols

> I added /Library/PostgreSQL/8.3/lib/** to my library search path, Try to add "-L/PostgreSQL/8.3/lib -lpg" options to linker's command line. You can get details with "ld --help". Good luck. --- Quan Zongliang [EMAIL PROTECTED] CIT Japan: http://www.c

Re: [GENERAL] Monty on MySQL 5.1: "Oops, we did it again"

Gurjeet Singh wrote: > As I read it, he is supportive of the community process that PG follows; I > am not so sure he promotes Postgres though :) I based my comments on discussions I have had with him, not based on his blog. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://momjian.us Ente

Re: [GENERAL] c function - undefined symbols

Hi! Thanks for your reply. Yes, thats also my suspicion. But what library to include? I added /Library/PostgreSQL/8.3/lib/** to my library search path, but it won't help. If I knew which library I have to add, I think I can figure out how to properly configure my build settings. Couldn't find

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL and eval()

Richard Huxton wrote: Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: Alternatively I appreciate that I could use PL/pgSQL but that would assume that if I sent the sequence of operations to somebody else that he also had it compiled into his server. Well, pl/pgsql has been automatically included in all recent versio

[GENERAL] noobquestion: How does Postgres delete 'smart' when deleting with FK contraints?

Hi group, Consider the following simplified table: create table tbltest( testid INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, reftotestid INTEGER REFERENCES tbltest(testid), langid INTEGER ); INSERT INTO tbltest (testid,reftotestid,langid) VALUES (1,NULL,4); INSERT INTO tbltest (testid,reftotestid,langid) VALUES (2,

[GENERAL] disallow updates on column or whole table

Hi all, What is the best way to disallow updates on a column of a table, or even on a whole table itself? I can write a BEFORE UPDATE trigger which compares old.column_name(s) to new.column_name(s) and raise an exception if these values are different. Are there better ways? Certain propert

[GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle setting

Hi, recently Tom Lane wrote: "henry" writes: >> I have tried setting tcp_keepalives_idle = 120 (eg), then restarting PG, >> but SHOW ALL; shows tcp_keepalives_idle=0 (ignoring my setting). >Just FYI, this is the expected behavior on platforms where the kernel >doesn't allow adjustment of the TCP

Re: [GENERAL] quit milis

Tonny Sapri wrote: > I want quit milis postgresql. There is a form you can fill in here: http://www.postgresql.org/community/lists/ -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgre

Re: [GENERAL] c function - undefined symbols

Steffn wrote: > Undefined symbols: > "_Float8GetDatum", referenced from: >_add_one_float8 in foo.o > ld: symbol(s) not found > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status > > Following the documentation I only added > "/Library/PostgreSQL/8.3/include/**" to my header search path. What else > do I need

[GENERAL] c function - undefined symbols

I already asked this question on the psql-novice list, but didn't get any reply. I am aware that this is probably a basic question and hope someone here can point me in the right direction! Hi! I am currently trying my first steps in writing my own functions in C. I read through the documenta

[GENERAL] PostgreSQL and eval()

I had to do some repeated ad-hoc queries yesterday for a report that was needed in a hurry, and found myself doing repeated editing of an embedded function name. If one wants to store the name of a function in a table for subsequent use in customised queries is the only way to use it by coding

Re: [GENERAL] equal and like

Thank You. After reindex it's working fine. Gabor On Ked, December 9, 2008 23:06, Bill Moran wrote: > In response to "Schwéger Gábor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> This is my first post to this list. >> Our database moved to a larger partition. >> And now I have a problem with a select query: >> db=

[GENERAL] quit milis

I want quit milis postgresql. thank you. Mulai chatting dengan teman di Yahoo! Pingbox baru sekarang!! Membuat tempat chat pribadi di blog Anda sekarang sangatlah mudah. http://id.messenger.yahoo.com/pingbox/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make