On Jun 24, 2013, at 3:47, Moshe Jacobson mo...@neadwerx.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Martín Marqués mar...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Is it possible to see the function?
Yes -- It checks that the given vendor has the given vendor_type by calling
I'm just wondering why postgres_fdw explicitly sets search_path to
pg_catalog. If it does not do that, is there any security risk?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
Hi
This is my first question, so, forgive me if it's a newby issue but I
couldn't find an answer googling.
I have a simple composite type
CREATE TYPE info_base AS
(by text,
at timestamp without time zone);
I want to use it as the data type of created, modified and deleted fields.
I
Xiaobo Gu wrote:
We have very large files in size will be created as external tables in
PostgreSQL via file_fdw, we
have the following considerations:
1. Can file_fdw handle files with size large than the size of RAM in the
server.
That shouldn't be a problem.
2. Will file_fdw scan the
Michael Angeletti wrote:
I'm Michael, and this is my first post here.
I asked this question last night:
http://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/45077
which details the problem (or not?) I'm having. The gist of it is that
Postgres is not archiving the
first WAL segments for my
My problem is inside triggers: How can I set or get type field values for
NEW or OLD? (I need it to check users permissions at row level, etc.)
I tried NEW.((created).by), NEW.(created.by), NEW.created.by and nothing
works...
Could you help me please?
Thanks in advance.
Martin
for
I'm moving this discussion to -general.
Dmitriy Igrishin wrote:
While developing a C++ client library for Postgres I felt lack of extra
information in command tags in the CommandComplete (B) message [...]
for the following commands:
It seems like bad design to me to keep a list of prepared
Hi All,
Getting an error in version 9.2 ERROR: missing FROM-clause entry for table
for some queries. Server parameter add_missing_from is removed from version
9 as per release notes, so is there any workaround for fixing this issue? or is
the better way is modifying all these queries ?
Dear community
Last week we upgraded our database from 8.4 to 9.1. The upgrade seemed to
go fine and the database seems to have been working fine ever since
(around a week now).
However, today I noticed the output from the pg_upgrade command contained
the following:
| Your installation contains
Arun P.L wrote:
Getting an error in version 9.2 ERROR: missing FROM-clause entry for table
for some queries. Server
parameter add_missing_from is removed from version 9 as per release notes,
so is there any
workaround for fixing this issue? or is the better way is modifying all these
This seems to be fixed in 9.2.
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Index-scan-and-bitmap-index-scan-hard-to-understand-how-planner-chooses-tp5760304p5760637.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:13:08AM +, Stuart Ford wrote:
Dear community
Last week we upgraded our database from 8.4 to 9.1. The upgrade seemed to
go fine and the database seems to have been working fine ever since
(around a week now).
However, today I noticed the output from the
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 08:51:46AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:13:08AM +, Stuart Ford wrote:
Dear community
Last week we upgraded our database from 8.4 to 9.1. The upgrade seemed to
go fine and the database seems to have been working fine ever since
Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org writes:
I'm just wondering why postgres_fdw explicitly sets search_path to
pg_catalog. If it does not do that, is there any security risk?
There was a long discussion of that back in February or so, when the
patch was (about to be) committed. In general, if
We have backed up $PGDATA, but had to re-initialize the slave.
We also have the WALs from the day this happened.
Thanks,
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Lonni J Friedman [mailto:netll...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:09 PM
To: Dan Kogan
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
2013/6/24 Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at
I'm moving this discussion to -general.
Okay, lets continue here.
Dmitriy Igrishin wrote:
While developing a C++ client library for Postgres I felt lack of extra
information in command tags in the CommandComplete (B) message [...]
for the
Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at writes:
Why do you need to track prepared statements on the client side?
The proposed change would fail to allow that anyway; consider the
possibility of a server-side function doing one or more PREPAREs or
DEALLOCATEs. The command tag would be completely
I could be wrong, but shouldn't the owner of .pgpass be postgres?
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Ziggy Skalski zskal...@afilias.infowrote:
On 13-06-21 06:19 PM, Stephen Rasku wrote:
I am trying to write a script that will create and populate a
database. I don't want to enter a password
On 13-06-21 06:19 PM, Stephen Rasku wrote:
I am trying to write a script that will create and populate a
database. I don't want to enter a password every time so I want to
use a .pgpass file. It has the correct permissions:
$ ls -l $PGPASSFILE
-rw--- 1 Stephen staff 43 21 Jun
Jashaswee wrote
i have tried in that way but its showing that the debit column doesn't
exist
So show us what exactly it is that you tried and maybe someone can tell you
what is wrong.
David J.
--
View this message in context:
On 06/24/13 10:24, Rebecca Clarke wrote:
I could be wrong, but shouldn't the owner of .pgpass be postgres?
The owner of ~/.pgpass is whoever owns ~ (the home directory of that user).
And ~/.pgpass must have permissions 0600 in order for libpq to actually
use it.
Jan
On Mon, Jun 24,
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:42 AM, boraldomaster boraldomas...@gmail.comwrote:
This seems to be fixed in 9.2.
Which version were you originally seeing it in? I still see that behavior
(or something close to it) in 9.4dev.
It stabilizes after doing a vacuum analyze (not just analyze), but that
On 24/06/2013 14:00, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Looking further, here is the command that is executed:
SELECT pg_catalog.lo_create(t.loid)
FROM (SELECT DISTINCT loid FROM pg_catalog.pg_largeobject) AS t;
If you have created _new_ large objects since the upgrde, the
I firstly used 9.1.
After switching to 9.2. - the problem was fixed even without index only
scan.
I added another column to my table so this wasn't index only, but still had
better index behaviour.
--
View this message in context:
On 06/23/2013 10:33 PM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
Arun P.L aru...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Is there any settings in postgresql version 9.2 similar to mysql strict mode? I
need to get rid of some type casting errors in the upgrading process from
version 7.4 to 9.2, if this mode is not
i am using postgresql 8.4 version..but this doesn't support the function
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/postgresql-query-tp5759846p5760589.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing
i have tried in that way but its showing that the debit column doesn't exist
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/postgresql-query-tp5759846p5760593.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-general
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 03:25:44PM +, Stuart Ford wrote:
On 24/06/2013 14:00, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Looking further, here is the command that is executed:
SELECT pg_catalog.lo_create(t.loid)
FROM (SELECT DISTINCT loid FROM pg_catalog.pg_largeobject) AS t;
2013/6/24 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at writes:
Why do you need to track prepared statements on the client side?
The proposed change would fail to allow that anyway; consider the
possibility of a server-side function doing one or more PREPAREs or
On 24/06/2013 17:18, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 03:25:44PM +, Stuart Ford wrote:
On 24/06/2013 14:00, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Looking further, here is the command that is executed:
SELECT pg_catalog.lo_create(t.loid)
FROM
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 06:03:40PM +, Stuart Ford wrote:
On 24/06/2013 17:18, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 03:25:44PM +, Stuart Ford wrote:
On 24/06/2013 14:00, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Looking further, here is the command
Hello:
Sorry for disturbing again.
I traced source code of PG, and found that:
When the 「create index concurrently 」statement is called,The following
calling relationship is there:
PortalRunMulti-- PortalRunUtility--Standard_ProcessUtility--DefineIndex
Here I omit some code of DefineIndex
32 matches
Mail list logo
