Re: libpq version in rpm packages

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Brian Mathis wrote:

> I'm using CentOS 4.2, which only has packages for postgres 7.4, but I very
> much want to use 8.1. I installed the 8.1 RPMs, but when I try to install
> packages like perl-DBD-Pg, or php-pgsql, rpm complains because they want
> libpq.so.3, and postgres 8.1 comes with libpq.so.4.
>
> Does anyone have a workaround for this? I've thought about forcing the rpms
> to install, or even installing the postgres libs from 7.4.

We have a compat RPM to solve that issue:

http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/compat/

There are RPMs for x86 and x86_64; as well as a srpm. This RPM includes
libs from older PostgreSQL versions and these libs satisfy the
dependencies.

Regards,
- --
Devrim GUNDUZ
Kivi Bilişim Teknolojileri - http://www.kivi.com.tr
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDckwF4zE8DGqpiZARAvUvAKCfhBwx1OJ3KrpCBU1ODTnBaFwb3ACgqPdO
OJ9hxlkksO7dHtAy1rd/tDo=
=mcse
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>From pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org Wed Nov 9 15:28:37 2005
X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D709BDA0FE
for <pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:28:33 -0400 (AST)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 37878-10
for <pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org>;
Wed, 9 Nov 2005 19:28:26 +0000 (GMT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from svr2.postgresql.org (svr2.postgresql.org [65.19.161.25])
by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895BBD9E58
for <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:28:25 -0400 (AST)
Received: from wimpy.net.nih.gov (mailfwd.nih.gov [128.231.88.106])
by svr2.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BF1F0FFA
for <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:22:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from wimpy.net.nih.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by wimpy.net.nih.gov (8.12.11/8.11.7) with ESMTP id jA9GMWHt023095
for <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:22:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [128.231.145.14] (holmes.nhgri.nih.gov [128.231.145.14])
by wimpy.net.nih.gov (8.12.11/8.11.7) with ESMTP id jA9GMWvQ023090;
Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:22:32 -0500 (EST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:22:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Question on Insert / Update
From: Sean Davis <sdavis2(at)mail(dot)nih(dot)gov>
To: Alex <alex(at)meerkatsoft(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Message-ID: <BF978C81(dot)1288F%sdavis2(at)mail(dot)nih(dot)gov>
In-Reply-To: <43720B9A(dot)10907(at)meerkatsoft(dot)com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.013 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013]
X-Spam-Score: 0.013
X-Spam-Level:
X-Archive-Number: 200511/485
X-Sequence-Number: 86629

On 11/9/05 9:45 AM, "Alex" <alex(at)meerkatsoft(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi,
> have just a general question...
>
> I have a table of 10M records, unique key on 5 fields.
> I need to update/insert 200k records in one go.
>
> I could do a select to check for existence and then either insert or update.
> Or simply insert, check on the error code an update if required.
>
> The 2nd seems to be to logical choice, but will it actually be faster
> and moreover is that the right way to do it?

Probably the fastest and most robust way to go about this if you have the
records in the form of a tab-delimited file is to COPY or \copy (in psql)
them into a separate loader table and then use SQL to manipulate the records
(check for duplicates, etc) for final insertion into the table.

Sean