Hi,
I have two questions
1. Is it possible to set up a set of redundant disks for a database? one
of them being remote from
the database?
2. If I want to use my i/o routines for disk i/o, is it possible?
does postgres support such APIs?
thanks,
Sandeep
> The cost difference between 32K vs 8K disk reads/writes are so small
> these days when compared with overall cost of the disk operation itself,
> that you can even measure it, well below 1%. Remember seek times
> advertised on disks are an average.
It has been said how small the difference is
I have Red Hat Linux 6.2 , PostgreSQL 7.0.2.
Could anybody help me to configure ident daemon using the file
pg_ident.conf
Thanks in advance,
anuradha
Hello all,
I am new to postgreSQL. When I read the documents, I find out the Postmaster
daemon actual spawns a new backend server process to serve a new client
request. Why not use threads instead? Is that just for a historical reason,
or some performance/implementation concern?
Thank you very m
At 03:35 PM 11/30/00 -0800, Nathan Myers wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:01PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>>
>> v7.1 should improve crash recovery ...
>> ... with the WAL stuff that Vadim is producing, you'll be able to
>> recover up until the point that the power cable was pulled out o
Hi
I'm compiling (not, I'm trying to compile) last version of Postgresql on
Sequent Dynix/ptx ver 4.4.7 system. Under compilation process with gcc (ver
2.7.2 ported on dynix/pt) is reporting several errors.
If someone is ready to help me with this process please send me answer.
Radek
Hello,
Before the Thanksgiving holiday here in the US I had been following with
great interest the thread regarding Vadim's English and the postgres docs.
Since this was posted about 200 messages ago, I replied as a new thread... I
hope you don't mind!
I am interested in volunteering some tim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 09:13:28PM +1100, Philip Warner wrote:
>> You have raised some interesting issues regrading write-order etc. Can we
>> assume that when fsync *returns*, all records are written - though not
>> necessarily in the order that the IO's
At 01:06 PM 12/3/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Open source software is a
>privilege,
I admit that I don't subscribe to Stallman's "source to software is a
right" argument. That's far off my reality map.
> and nobody has the right to call someone "irresponsible"
>because they want to get
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 12:00:12AM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Nathan Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:01PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > > v7.1 should improve crash recovery ...
> > > ... with the WAL stuff that Vadim is producing, you'll be able to
(apologies for posting directly to pgsql-hackers, but I'm asking for a
hacker to explicitly check on the accuracy of another posting!)
I've written (& submitted to pgsql-docs) a tutorial on using RI features
and on alter the system catalog to change RI properties for existing
relationships.
I ne
Tom Lane wrote:
> This is a header bug (there's a backend header file that some bright
> soul put a static function declaration into :-( ... and the function
Actually, it's a static function, not a declaration. The DISABLE_COMPLEX_MACRO
definition was originally put in to work around a macro siz
bingo.
Not just third-party app's, but think of all the vertical products that
include PG...
I'm right now wondering if TIVO uses it?
You have to think that PG will show up in some pretty interesting money
making products...
So yes, had you not got the ball rolling well, you know what I'm
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:53:08PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
> >
> > > > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
> > > > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambig
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:53:08PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
>
> > > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
> > > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what
> > > ever you want.
> >
> > That
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
> I'm agreeing with the people like SePICK and erServer.
> I'm only being sort of cheeky in saying that they wouldn't have had a
> product had
> it not been for the Open Source that they are leveraging off of.
So, basically, if I hadn't pulled together
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> > If this is the impression that someone gave, I am shocked ... Thomas
> > himself has already posted stating that it was a scheduale slip on his
> > part.
>
> Actually, Thomas said:
>
> Thomas> Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in th
Correct me if I'm wrong but in the last 3 years what company that you
know of didn't consider an IPO part of the "business and such". Most
tech companies that have been formed in the last 4 - 5 years have one
thing on the brain--IPO. It's the #1 thing (sadly) that they care about.
I only wished
I'm agreeing with the people like SePICK and erServer.
I'm only being sort of cheeky in saying that they wouldn't have had a
product had
it not been for the Open Source that they are leveraging off of.
Making money? I don't know what they're plans are, but at some point I would
fully expect *some
> I'm still anxious to see the core patches needed to support replication.
> Since you've leaked that they work going back to v6.5, I have a feeling
> the approach may not be the one I was hoping for.
There are no core patches required to support replication. This has been
said already, but perha
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:49:09PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> >
> > IIRC, this thread woke up on someone complaining about PostgreSQl inc
> > promising
> > to release some code for replication in mid-october and asking for
> > confirmation
>
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
> At 11:00 PM 12/2/00 -0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
> >> There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc
> >> is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After
> >> all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
> > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
> > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what
> > ever you want.
>
> Thats a given.
okay, then now I'm confused ... neither SePICK or erServer are derive
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, mlw wrote:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > > I know this is a borderline rant, and I am sorry, but I think it is very
> > > important that the integrity of open source be preserved at 100% because
> > > it is a very slippery slope, and we are all surrounded by the temptation
> > >
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
> >
> > > > I *am* one of those volunteers
> > >
> > > Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering
> > > to test your code, and leaving on vacati
At 5:17 PM -0500 12/3/00, mlw wrote:
>I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use
>it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand
>how anyone could think differently.
Yeah, it really sucks when companies that are in buisness to make money by
> mlw wrote: [heavily edited]
>> No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on
>> the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
>> open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
>> I honestly feel that it is wrong to take wh
Adam Haberlach wrote:
>In any case, can we create pgsql-politics so we don't have to go over
> this issue every three months? Can we create pgsql-benchmarks while we
> are at it, to take care of the other thread that keeps popping up?
pgsql-yawn, where any of them can happen as often and
mlw wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > > I know this is a borderline rant, and I am sorry, but I think it is very
> > > important that the integrity of open source be preserved at 100% because
> > > it is a very slippery slope, and we are all surrounded by the temptation
> > > cheat the spirit o
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 05:17:36PM -0500, mlw wrote:
> ... if I write code which is dependent on
> the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
> open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
This is short and I will say no more:
The entire socia
> No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on
> the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
> open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
>
Actually, your not legally bound to anything if you write "new" additional
co
Gary MacDougall wrote:
>
> > No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on
> > the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
> > open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
> >
>
> Actually, your not legally bound to any
Oleg Bartunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a couple months ago:
It's clear that we must use 'unsigned char' instead of 'char'
and corrected version runs ok on both systems. That's why I suspect
that gcc 2.95.2 has different default under FreeBSD which could
cause problem with LC_C
"Gary MacDougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No offense Trond, if you were in on the Red Hat IPO from the start,
> you'd have to say those people made "good money".
I'm talking about the business as such, not the IPO where the price
went stratospheric (we were priced like we were earning 1 or
No offense Trond, if you were in on the Red Hat IPO from the start,
you'd have to say those people made "good money". Bad market
or good market, those "friends of Red Hat" made some serious coin.
Let me clarify, I'm not against this process (and making money), I just
think there is an issue with
(I posted this yesterday, but it never appeared. Apologies if it's a
duplicate to you.)
I've written (& submitted to pgsql-docs) a tutorial on using RI
features
and on alter the system catalog to change RI properties for existing
relationships.
I needs polishing, etc., but, mostly it needs som
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > I know this is a borderline rant, and I am sorry, but I think it is very
> > important that the integrity of open source be preserved at 100% because
> > it is a very slippery slope, and we are all surrounded by the temptation
> > cheat the spirit of open source "just a li
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
>
> > > I *am* one of those volunteers
> >
> > Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering
> > to test your code, and leaving on vacation.
> >
> > You were irresponsible then, and you're being
mlw wrote:
>
> Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> > As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let
> > me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be
> > a few flaws... ;)
>
> While I have not contributed anything to Postgres yet, I have
> contributed
"Gary MacDougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think this trend is MUCH bigger than what Postgres, Inc. is
> doing... its happening all over the comminity. Heck take a look
> around... Jabber, Postgres, Red Hat, SuSe, Storm etc. etc. these
> companies are making good money off a business pla
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Horst Herb wrote:
> > > Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention.
> Figuring
> > > out how to prevent open source from stealing the thunder by duplicating
> ^^
> > > features. And building
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> At 04:42 AM 12/3/00 +, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> >> This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past
> >> few years by volunteers.
> >
> >imho it does not,
>
> Sure it does. You in essence are saying that "advanced replication is so
> hard that it cou
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
> > I *am* one of those volunteers
>
> Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering
> to test your code, and leaving on vacation.
>
> You were irresponsible then, and you're being irresponsible now.
Okay, so let me get
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Adam Haberlach wrote:
> In any case, can we create pgsql-politics so we don't have to go over
> this issue every three months? Can we create pgsql-benchmarks while we
> are at it, to take care of the other thread that keeps popping up?
no skin off my back:
pgs
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> mlw writes:
>
> > There are hundreds (thousands?) of people that have contributed to the
> > development of Postgres, either directly with code, or beta testing,
> > with the assumption that they are benefiting a community. Many would
> > probably not have done so if
I think this trend is MUCH bigger than what Postgres, Inc. is doing... its
happening all over
the comminity. Heck take a look around... Jabber, Postgres, Red Hat, SuSe,
Storm etc. etc.
these companies are making good money off a business plan that was basically
"hey, lets take some
of that open s
> >I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of ERserver is related
> >to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server? Let me clear things:
>
> (not based on WAL)
>
> That's wasn't clear from the blurb.
>
> Still, this notion that PG, Inc will start producing closed-source products
> poisons
Adriaan Joubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Copy binary recently broke on me after upgrading to 7.0.
I think you're talking about binary copy via the frontend, which has a
different set of problems. To fix that, we need to make some protocol
changes, which would (preferably) also apply to non-
Hi,
I would very much like some way of writing binary data to a database.
Copy binary recently broke on me after upgrading to 7.0. I have large
simulation codes and writing lots of floats to the database by
converting them to text first is 1) a real pain, 2) slow and 3) can lead
to unexpe
At 11:00 PM 12/2/00 -0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
>> There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc
>> is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After
>> all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would
>> allow others to co-op the
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let
> me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be
> a few flaws... ;)
While I have not contributed anything to Postgres yet, I have
contributed to other environments. The pro
I've applied Neale Ferguson's patches for S/390 support, and some fairly
extensive patches to repair and improve support for the OVERLAPS
operator. I've increased coverage of this in the regression tests,
including horology, so those platforms which have variants on these test
results will need to
> > How long until the entire code base gets co-opted?
>
> Yeah so what? Nobody's forcing you to use, buy, or pay attention to any
> such efforts. The market will determine whether the release model of
> PostgreSQL, Inc. appeals to customers. Open source software is a
> privilege, and nobody ha
> > Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention.
Figuring
> > out how to prevent open source from stealing the thunder by duplicating
^^
> > features. And building a _product_.
Oops. You didn't really mean that,
Ron Chmara wrote:
> As it is, any company trying to make a closed version of an open source
> product has some _massive_ work to do. Manuals. Documentation. Sales.
> Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention. Figuring
> out how to prevent open source from stealing the th
Don Baccus writes:
> How long until the entire code base gets co-opted?
Yeah so what? Nobody's forcing you to use, buy, or pay attention to any
such efforts. The market will determine whether the release model of
PostgreSQL, Inc. appeals to customers. Open source software is a
privilege, and
56 matches
Mail list logo
