Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane writes:
1. A wildcardable pattern must consist of either namepattern or
namepattern.namepattern.
Regarding the use of quotes: Would
\d foo.bar
show the table foo.bar, whereas
\d foo.bar
would show the table bar in schema foo?
I'm going to be overseeing a move from a Mac-based postgres database (100k
transactions/day, roughly 5M rows) to an SGI Octane in the near-ish term.The
machine will only be two-way SMP. I'd like to see it working 64-bit and
compiled with MIPSpro. I have a friend who has mostly succeeded in
Alex Avriette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd really like to see Postgres understand MIPSpro and
irix out of the box. I understand there is some difficulty at present.
Like what?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
Alex Avriette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a friend who has mostly succeeded in getting
it compiiled with MIPSpro, but Neil told me today there might be concerns
with SMP systems 4cpu's.
That's my impression, anyone -- I can't say I've confirmed that with
any benchmarks.
I offered
It seems we need a smart plan for handling the decimal point vs. comma
issue. Observe: (lc_numeric = de_DE)
create table test_f (x double precision);
CREATE TABLE
insert into test_f values ('1.5');
ERROR: Bad float8 input format '1.5'
insert into test_f values ('1,5');
INSERT 16909 1
create
Note, I'm not sure this belongs in -hackers so I've added -general but left
-hackers in so that list can at least see that it's going to -general.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, mark Kirkwood wrote:
Hi all,
I just spent some of the morning helping a customer build Pg 7.2.1 from
source in order to
Again, I'm not sure this doesn't belong on -general but have left the -hackers
in the distribution list so it can be seen there.
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
I see files truncated at 1Gb on my Linux server:
-rw---1 postgres users855490560 Aug 6 20:53 795261707.2
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
I see files truncated at 1Gb on my Linux server:
-rw---1 postgres users855490560 Aug 6 20:53 795261707.2
-rw---1 postgres users943259648 Aug 8 23:34 823049708
-rw---1 postgres users1073741824 Aug 6
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I propose that we do this (probably by writing our own strtod and
friends). If you want to format your numbers to local convention,
to_char() can be used.
Why are we allowing LC_NUMERIC to become active at all? IMHO this is a
bug that you have
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
---
Teodor Sigaev wrote:
The patch solves this
Picked up. Thanks.
---
Greg Copeland wrote:
Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
-- Start of PGP signed section.
On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 23:00, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Hi Greg,
You should be
Tom Lane dijo:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom, should we be updating that flag after we CLUSTER instead of
requiring an ANALYZE after the CLUSTER?
Could do that I suppose, but I'm not super-excited about it. ANALYZE is
quite cheap these days (especially in comparison to
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What if I [try to] extend the grammar to support an additional ANALYZE
in CLUSTER, so that it analyzes the table automatically?
I don't like this -- it seems like bloat. What's the advantage of
CLUSTER foo ON bar ANALYZE;
over
CLUSTER foo ON bar;
http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/buildlog.html
It would appear that the files point to the old urls, not the new ones
as per the cvs segregation.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister
On 8 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
The main difference (in the inheritance part) is that a relation does
not have one fixed set of fields, but can have any additional fields
added in inherited tables and still be part of to the base table as
well.
This is trivial to do with a view.
Curt Sampson wrote:
On 8 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
The main difference (in the inheritance part) is that a relation does
not have one fixed set of fields, but can have any additional fields
added in inherited tables and still be part of to the base table as
well.
This is trivial to
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
And views of this sort are trivial to do using PG's OO extensions.
So long as you don't mind them being broken, yeah. But hell, when someone
asks for a unique constraint, they probably don't really mean it, do they?
And what's wrong with multiple records
On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 23:41, Tom Lane wrote:
J. R. Nield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The xlog code must allow us to force an advance to the next log file,
and truncate the archived file when it's copied so as not to waste
space.
Uh, why? Why not just force a checkpoint and remember the
Neil Conway dijo:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What if I [try to] extend the grammar to support an additional ANALYZE
in CLUSTER, so that it analyzes the table automatically?
I don't like this -- it seems like bloat.
Maybe you are right.
Or maybe just do an analyze of
Curt Sampson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
And views of this sort are trivial to do using PG's OO extensions.
So long as you don't mind them being broken, yeah. But hell, when someone
asks for a unique constraint, they probably don't really mean it, do they?
Good grief,
Or maybe just do an analyze of the table automatically after the
CLUSTERing.
Hmmm... I don't really see the problem with adding a note in the docs
suggesting that users following a CLUSTER with an ANALYZE (...).
ANALYZE is an inexpensive operation (compared to CLUSTER, anyway), so
Christopher Kings-Lynne dijo:
Or maybe just do an analyze of the table automatically after the
CLUSTERing.
Well we have previously had discussions on the topic of adding analyze to
the end of dumps, etc. and the result has always been in favour of keeping
the command set orthogonal
Well we have previously had discussions on the topic of adding
analyze to
the end of dumps, etc. and the result has always been in favour
of keeping
the command set orthogonal and not doing an automatic analyze...
Oh. Sorry for the noise.
I'm trying to look at other things in the
If you're looking for something very useful to work on, see if Gavin
Sherry(?) can post his old CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW code. I'm pretty sure he
(or someone) said that he had an old patch, that needed to be synced with
HEAD... This functionality is pretty essential for 7.3...
Chris
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What if I [try to] extend the grammar to support an additional ANALYZE
in CLUSTER, so that it analyzes the table automatically?
I don't like this -- it seems like bloat.
My reaction exactly.
J. R. Nield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uh, why? Why not just force a checkpoint and remember the exact
location of the checkpoint within the current log file?
If I do a backup with PITR and save it to tape, I need to be able to
restore it even if my machine is destroyed in a fire, and all
On Thursday 08 August 2002 05:36 pm, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
Matt Kirkwood wrote:
I just spent some of the morning helping a customer build Pg 7.2.1 from
source in order to get Linux largefile support in pg_dump etc. They
possibly would have kept using the binary RPMs if they had this
Hi guys,
If you apply the pg_stat_reset() function patch you get this regression
failure. Is this because it's returning a bool I guess? Shall I just fix
the regression test to exclude this function?
Chris
*** ./expected/opr_sanity.out Fri Jul 19 07:11:32 2002
--- ./results/opr_sanity.out
28 matches
Mail list logo
