OK, works now with the recent update.
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p5059777.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Great, thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4856336.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/file/n4848829/pg_upgrade_9.1.1.zip
pg_upgrade_9.1.1.zip
I hope that is what you meant with pg_upgrade log file.
Regards,
panam
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4848829.html
Sent from
try this?
Thanks
panam
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4850735.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
Hi Bruce,
here is the whole dump (old DB):
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/file/n4844725/dump.txt dump.txt
Regards,
panam
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4844725.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list
a bit of
work as I have to expunge some sensitive schema data, or is there a
meaningful way to just do the dump for a single db?
Thanks regards,
panam
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4843289.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers
OK, i started once again:
I hope the following is the correct way of querying the table corresponding
to a relid:
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4838427.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive
to be
migrated but the content is missing.
I am using Windows 7 64bit (both PG servers are 64 bit as well), everthing
on the same machine.
Any ideas?
Thanks regards
panam
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4798957.html
Sent from
it is the way the hashtable is built
and that order makes a difference in that case? In short: Why is clustered
data not affected?
Regards,
panam
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Re-PERFORM-Hash-Anti-Join-performance-degradation-tp4443803p4445123.html
Sent from
(in this case even total)
and the use case is quite common I guess.
Some ideas from an earlier post:
panam wrote:
...
This also made me wonder how the internal plan is carried out. Is the
engine able to leverage the fact that a part/range of the rows [/index
entries] is totally or partially ordered
10 matches
Mail list logo