Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday 02 September 2004 00:20, Joe Conway wrote:
BTW, I've been naming these similar to the "official" rpms (e.g.
Postgresql-8.0.0*PGDG.*.rpm) mainly just to be consistent. No one has
complained about it, so I take it that's OK?
Sorry, I've been kindof swamped around here.
Open Source Projects:
http://www.garret.ru/~knizhnik/fastdb.html
http://sourceforge.net/projects/monetdb
Papers:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cha95objectoriented.html
http://www.cs.ou.edu/~database/main_memory.htm
HTH
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
On Thursday 02 September 2004 16:27, Jon Jensen wrote:
> I've been meaning to ask for a long time: Why does /var/log/pgsql get
> installed with the execute bit set? I don't have any other log files with
> the execute bit on, and can't imagine why that would be necessary or
> useful. Am I missing so
Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 9/1/2004 9:02 PM, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>
>> Jan Wieck wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Which is another point I was about to ask. How do these people,
>>> running those huge and horribly important databases, ever test a
>>> single application change? Or any schema changes for that matter. D
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Lamar Owen wrote:
> Sorry, I've been kindof swamped around here. Please name them using, say, a
> 'JC' instead of 'PGDG' if you don't mind. I appreciate you providing these;
> however, I do intend to be releasing RPM's soon, but probably not beta2 ones.
> I have some feat
On 9/1/2004 9:02 PM, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
Which is another point I was about to ask. How do these people, running
those huge and horribly important databases, ever test a single
application change? Or any schema changes for that matter. Do they
really type "psql -c 'alter tab
On Thursday 02 September 2004 00:20, Joe Conway wrote:
> I just posted a source rpm for beta2, along with binary rpms for
> fc1-i386, fc2-i386, and fc2-x86_64.
> http://www.joeconway.com/postgresql-8.0.0beta/
> BTW, I've been naming these similar to the "official" rpms (e.g.
> Postgresql-8.0.0*PG
I have both installed, but neither is 'autoconf', so I took the newer one
;( Will keep this in mind on next beta ... sorry about that ...
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
By chance I noticed that when you tagged 8.0beta2, you rebuilt configure
with autoconf 2.59. This is not good when the re
By chance I noticed that when you tagged 8.0beta2, you rebuilt configure
with autoconf 2.59. This is not good when the rest of us are using
2.53. We have to stick to a common standard.
We could talk about asking all committers to update to 2.59, but
mid-beta is probably not the right time for a
Am Donnerstag, 2. September 2004 13:00 schrieb Eyinagho Newton:
> Part of my final year thesis involves creating a
> database using PostgreSQL. As a way of documentation,
> is it correct to say that PosgreSQL belongs to the
> fifth generation of database management systems? Where
> does MySQL fall
Part of my final year thesis involves creating a
database using PostgreSQL. As a way of documentation,
is it correct to say that PosgreSQL belongs to the
fifth generation of database management systems? Where
does MySQL fall into? The fourth generation?
Thanks,
Newton Eyinagho
> Sorry to be such a pest. Since an administrator will get this error:
>
> creating template1 database in u:/msys/1.0/local/pgsql/data/base/1 ...
> execution of PostgreSQL by a user with administrative
> permissions is not permitted.
> The server must be started under an unprivileged user ID to
12 matches
Mail list logo
