Bristol Digest, Vol 539, Issue 6

Send Bristol mailing list submissions to
bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bristol-request@mailman.lug.org.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
bristol-owner@mailman.lug.org.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bristol digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: quad core blimey (Andrew)
2. Re: quad core blimey (bblug@gascoigne19.freeserve.co.uk)
3. Re: Opamp - somewhat off topic (John Daragon)
4. Re: Slony probs (Colin M. Strickland)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:26:07 +0000
From: Andrew <andrewsoltau@gmail.com>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] quad core blimey
Message-ID: <530B8EBF.4030604@1dtv.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"

On 24/02/14 18:18, bblug@gascoigne19.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
>
> >On 24/02/14 14:16, Peter Hemmings wrote:
>
> >"Core blimey" (London Accent) I never thought these still
> existed! I remember them from many years ago (more the 40!).
>
> >Things certainly change. It used to be Cor blimey. I presume you are
> on the new quad core blimey!
>
> 'New' quad-core? Surely we're up to hex-core now, possibly even oct-core?
>
> John
>
Yes, but he did say he was behind the times.

And hex core blimey might mean bad magic.

And oct core blimey could just be a bad month.

Though in this company I guess it is always going to be taken as factors
of 2.

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/bristol/attachments/20140224/e39ec970/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:08:45 -0000
From: <bblug@gascoigne19.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <andrew@1dtv.com>, "'Bristol and Bath Linux User Group'"
<bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] quad core blimey
Message-ID:
<021c01cf3193$d7675260$8635f720$@gascoigne19.freeserve.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

>On 24/02/14 18:18, bblug@gascoigne19.freeserve.co.uk wrote:

>>On 24/02/14 14:16, Peter Hemmings wrote:

>>"Core blimey" (London Accent) I never thought these still existed! I
remember them from many years ago (more the 40!).

>>Things certainly change. It used to be Cor blimey. I presume you are on
the new quad core blimey!

>

>?New? quad-core? Surely we?re up to hex-core now, possibly even oct-core?

>

>John

>Yes, but he did say he was behind the times.



Good point, well presented?



>And hex core blimey might mean bad magic.



Possibly, but better that it doesn?t?



>And oct core blimey could just be a bad month.



How d?ya figure? Isn?t that just a pair of quad-core blimeys (blimies)?



>Though in this company I guess it is always going to be taken as factors of
2.



Don?t get started on the factors? That?s only gonna cause problems!



John (armed with ?0.02)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/bristol/attachments/20140224/1b438b45/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:44:33 -0500
From: John Daragon <john@blacklabs.co.uk>
To: "andrew@1dtv.com" <andrew@1dtv.com>, Bristol and Bath Linux User
Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Opamp - somewhat off topic
Message-ID:
<33F8E65C8ED54C4DA5074F176453215701F7542B2EA1@EXMBX01.njnx.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Andrew wrote...

Is there such a thing as 4 or 5 of these on a board, or even 10? We are thinking of setting it up to do several in parallel.

Google "quad op amp" or "octo op amp" - 4 or 8 of the little blighters on a single chip.

jd



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/bristol/attachments/20140224/6ce02a25/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:33:03 +0000
From: "Colin M. Strickland" <cms@beatworm.co.uk>
To: "Martin Moore" <martinm@it-helps.co.uk>, "Bristol and Bath Linux
User Group" <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Slony probs
Message-ID: <15B595EF-014D-49A0-A144-9098591317F8@beatworm.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

On 24 Feb 2014, at 15:17, Martin Moore wrote:

> I've restored a postgres 8.4 database onto a 9.3 installation (on
> Debian
> Jessie).
>
> Running a script (as used in 8.4 so may need to be changed, but can't
> find
> anything) which contains the following
>
>

Hmm, slony can be brittle. All of your errors seem to be thrown from
inside the slony stored procedures where attempts to cast ints to text.
I'm afraid I haven't worked with it for a couple of years now, and my
memory is rusty :-/

A couple of thoughts. There was a change in implicit casting behaviour
between 8.2 and 8.3 after which all sorts of implied casts to text types
stopped working without explicit type casting. Is it possible you've got
some pre 8.3 stored procedure code installed into the 9.3 database
somehow?

How did the slony code get installed ? I'm not sure you can reliably
deploy the slony server components into a database via a pg_dump, might
that have happened. I think you might need to install slony separately
from your database restore, load your dataset and then rebuild the slony
replication sets and resync your slaves from scratch.

If you don't absolutely have to go with slony for userspace replication,
I'd suggest looking into skytools londiste as a fairly drop-in
replacement. It's a little bit more robust than slony, works on
basically the same principles, and the python user tools are nice and
simple to use IMO. (You might also be able to use 9.3 streaming
replication instead of trigger-based replication, if your replication
requirement is to slave your entire dataset)

Sorry if I'm failing to address your actual question usefully, I don't
have a slony installation to hand to inspect. If I did, I'd be tempted
to examine the source of those sprocs and hand-reproduce the error by
calling them directly with similar arguments.


Regards,
Colin M. Strickland, cms, 'that guy'.



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Bristol mailing list
Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol

End of Bristol Digest, Vol 539, Issue 6
***************************************