(thread moved from pg_bugs)
(upgrading a 8.0.13 database on Windows XP 32bit to 9.5.1 on Windows 8
64 bit.)
On 3/1/2016 8:05 PM, Premsun Choltanwanich wrote:
Modified command by remove -Ft flag as per you suggestion:
pg_dump -v -h 192.168.200.75 -U clubadmin -d clubprogram | psql -U
cluba
Dear All,
I have very old project database which also contain lo data (large object data
managed by database's functions as lo(oid), lo_in(cstring), lo_oid(lo),
lo_out(lo) and oid(lo) to manage ) running on PostgreSQL 8.0.13 and need to
migrate it to most recently version as PostgreSQL 9.5.1.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>
> Perhaps I'm not being clear. Index 1 has field a and is used in the join no
> matter how small I set effective_cache_size (even 32mb). Index 2 has fields
> a,b but will not be used at ecs of 3gb, 6gb, whatever up til 8gb, when it's
> sudde
On 2/29/2016 3:55 PM, da...@andl.org wrote:
What I need (to find or create) is a ‘pure’ C language API to support
a Postgres server extension. By ‘pure’ I mean one that has no
knowledge of Postgres internals and that could be called by a generic
interface provided by some other tool that can
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:55 PM, wrote:
> What I need (to find or create) is a ‘pure’ C language API to support a
> Postgres server extension. By ‘pure’ I mean one that has no knowledge of
> Postgres internals and that could be called by a generic interface provided
> by some other tool that can
On 2 March 2016 at 12:23, Scott Mead wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:07 PM, David G. Johnston <
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You should read the definitions for the functions you are using to
>> retrieve the sizes.
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/functions-ad
>
>
>>> *Question:*
Payments in a Pending state cannot be invoiced and are excluded from
the Invoice Runs section, but they are showing in the count mechanic.
How can I solve this?
>>>
>>> In 9.2 you probably need to convert the count into a conditional sum:
>>>
>>> S
On Feb 29, 2016 22:26, "Evgeny Morozov" <
evgeny.morozov+list+pg...@shift-technology.com> wrote
> SELECT substring(bitarray from (32 * (n - 1) + 1) for 32) -- bitarray is
a column of type bit(6400)
> FROM array_test_bit
> JOIN generate_series(1, 1) n ON true;
Substring on a bit string is n
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:07 PM, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You should read the definitions for the functions you are using to
> retrieve the sizes.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/functions-admin.html
>
> +1, you've gotta be careful with each of th
You should read the definitions for the functions you are using to retrieve
the sizes.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/functions-admin.html
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:48 PM, drum.lu...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi there
>
> Wanna see how size a schema is in my PostgreSQL 9.2
>
> Got two
Hi there
Wanna see how size a schema is in my PostgreSQL 9.2
Got two queries - they return different values... can u please check?
cheers;
Query 1:
SELECT schema_name,
pg_size_pretty(sum(table_size)::bigint) as "disk space",
(sum(table_size) / pg_database_size(current_database())) * 100
W dniu 01.03.2016 o 20:02, Igor Neyman pisze:
[]
>
>
> It just occured to me: how do I make sure (e.g. force within a database) with
> the above structure, that a message can have *only one* sender?
> but, allow for multiple recepients?
>
> -R
>
> ___
Weiping Qu wrote:
> Hello Artur,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
> Should it work in a stable version like Postgresql 9.4, since it's enough
> for me and I don't care whether it's 9.6 or 9.5.
> Nevertheless I will try it using 9.4.
Yes, it was introduced by a commit that's in 9.5 and up only, so 9.
Sorry for the delay - used to getting replied-to-all on messages I send but
you didn't and I didn't notice the response until now.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
> >
> > Partitioning and partial indexes both have considerable limitations that
> > you might need to work aro
Hello Artur,
Thank you for your reply.
Should it work in a stable version like Postgresql 9.4, since it's
enough for me and I don't care whether it's 9.6 or 9.5.
Nevertheless I will try it using 9.4.
Regards,
Weiping
On 01.03.2016 22:04, Artur Zakirov wrote:
Hello, Weiping
It seems that it
W dniu 28.02.2016 o 03:35, David G. Johnston pisze:
> W dniu 23.02.2016 o 09:39, Rafal Pietrak pisze:
> > Can anybody suggest any other way out of this mass?
>
>
> The only thought that sticks while reading your prose is:
>
> message > message-person < person
>
>
> mess
Hello, Weiping
It seems that it is a bug. Thank you for report. I guess it will be
fixed soon.
On 01.03.2016 17:36, Weiping Qu wrote:
Dear postgresql general mailing list,
I am currently using the logical decoding feature (version 9.6 I think
as far as I found in the source, wal_level: logic
Hi all,I'm trying to order some rows based on port names, a text column, using some domain-specific knowledge for Netdisco, an open-source application. In particular, I'm trying to do this without having to redo the entire design for the database. Note that in this database, there are no foreign ke
Hi
2016-03-01 19:41 GMT+01:00 Alexander Farber :
> Good evening,
>
> in PostgreSQL 9.5 does RAISE EXCEPTION reliably rollback all previous
> commands in a stored function?
>
> I have a stored function (the code is at the bottom), which takes a JSON
> array of objects as arguments.
>
> First it pr
> Alexander Farber hat am 1. März 2016 um 19:41
> geschrieben:
>
>
> Good evening,
>
> in PostgreSQL 9.5 does RAISE EXCEPTION reliably rollback all previous
> commands in a stored function?
Yes.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
Good evening,
in PostgreSQL 9.5 does RAISE EXCEPTION reliably rollback all previous
commands in a stored function?
I have a stored function (the code is at the bottom), which takes a JSON
array of objects as arguments.
First it prepares some data and then loops through the JSON array and
upserts
Sridhar N Bamandlapally writes:
> Is there a way to avoid creating rule under creation of view ?
If you mean the ON SELECT rule, no. A view basically *is* an ON SELECT
rule; there's not very much else to it. What usefulness do you imagine
you'd get from a view without ON SELECT?
Very helpful!! Thanks!!
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 9:32 AM, Peter Devoy wrote:
> MongoDB has released 3.2 with their WiredTiger storage. Has anyone
> benchmarked 9.5 against it, and for JSONB elements several MB in size?
>
> PJ
Hi Paul
I do not have an answer for you but there is a g
Dear postgresql general mailing list,
I am currently using the logical decoding feature (version 9.6 I think
as far as I found in the source, wal_level: logical,
max_replication_slot: > 1, track_commit_timestamp: on, I am not sure
whether this will help or not).
Following the online documenta
> MongoDB has released 3.2 with their WiredTiger storage. Has anyone
> benchmarked 9.5 against it, and for JSONB elements several MB in size?
>
> PJ
Hi Paul
I do not have an answer for you but there is a great talk here in
which someone explains why they moved from a NoSQL stack to Postgres:
htt
MongoDB has released 3.2 with their WiredTiger storage. Has anyone
benchmarked 9.5 against it, and for JSONB elements several MB in size?
PJ
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-gene
Hi
Is there a way to avoid creating rule under creation of view ?
please let me know
Thanks
Sridhar
27 matches
Mail list logo