Hello all,
We have configured RAID 0 setup, with 8 EBS volumes of size 700G. We
combined those volumes under a single mount point for the data directory.
Archives are configured to be stored on different EC2 instances.Currently
disk utilisation of data directory crossed 90%. We need to increase th
Guten Tag Christophe Pettus,
am Montag, 20. Juli 2020 um 07:19 schrieben Sie:
> No, you don't, and you (probably) can't change the ownership of
> "inet". "inet" is a built-in type.
I'm somewhat sure I did and can answer my own questions now:
> dropdb ams_sm_mtg
> createdb --encoding=UTF-8 --loca
Dear Members!
I have a question about PGBench for Windows (9,6).
I want to understand the working method of this tool for use well
in the test series.
This has more options, like connections (c).
As I tried the c controls how much concurrent connections must be used in
the test. For example c
Durumdara writes:
> But the number of threads option (j I think) confused me. At first I
> thought the total connection number is simply the multiplication of c and j
> (subconnections).
> As I saw this is untrue.
> So I don't know how this utility works really in the background.
There are -j th
On 7/20/20 12:01 AM, RAJAMOHAN wrote:
Hello all,
We have configured RAID 0 setup, with 8 EBS volumes of size 700G. We
combined those volumes under a single mount point for the data
directory. Archives are configured to be stored on different EC2
instances.Currently disk utilisation of data di
I extend the question to understand why I was confused about this.
In Delphi the connections are thread based. From a thread you can use more
connections. But you can't use a connection from two or more threads
concurrently! You can use subprocess farm, or subthread farm to make
parallel performan
Dear Tom!
Tom Lane ezt írta (időpont: 2020. júl. 20., H, 15:38):
>
> There are -j threads in the pgbench process, and -c connections to
> the server (hence -c backend processes on the server side). Each
> of the pgbench threads is responsible for sending queries to a subset
> of the connections
> I have a strange error when using logical replication between a 11.2
> source database and a 12.3 target.
>
> If I create the publication with all needed tables (about 50) at
> once, I get "duplicate key value violates unique constraint xxx_pkey"
> errors during the initial replication (when crea
Marc,
If you add a check constraint that proves the new child partition has no
out of bounds rows, then the ATTACH PARTITION will not block:
"Before running the ATTACH PARTITION command, it is recommended to create a
CHECK constraint on the table to be attached matching the desired partition
cons
> On Jul 20, 2020, at 02:28, Thorsten Schöning wrote:
>
> Would be far easier if Postgres would do that automatically like it
> seems to do for most other objects. The important point is that owning
> those types seems to be per database, so things should be safe to do
> automatically.
I'm no
Tobias, 1st some etiquette stuff.
- You have replied just to me, directly. I'm CCing the list. Remember
to use reply all. Usual practice in the postgres lists is to reply to
the list and everyone involved in the thread ( doing reply all
achieves this normally ).
- It's not a biggie in this partic
On 7/20/20 7:22 AM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
I have a strange error when using logical replication between a 11.2
source database and a 12.3 target.
If I create the publication with all needed tables (about 50) at
once, I get "duplicate key value violates unique constraint xxx_pkey"
errors during
Guten Tag Christophe Pettus,
am Montag, 20. Juli 2020 um 16:34 schrieben Sie:
> I'm not sure I understand exactly how this "feature" would work.
Make internal types used in CASTs owned by the restoring user, like
all other objects are owned automatically as well. Postgres obviously
is able to det
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:08 PM Ailleen Pace
wrote:
> Oracle has a product called Oracle Label Security using Oracle Internet
> Directory. Does PostgreSQL have a similar capability?
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
Hi Ailleen,
Googling it appears the same functionality in Postgres is called Row Le
> On Jul 20, 2020, at 08:10, Thorsten Schöning wrote:
> Make internal types used in CASTs owned by the restoring user, like
> all other objects are owned automatically as well.
I don't think that we want to do that, or that we even have to.
Having a restore tool make automatic changes to the
Thomas Kellerer writes:
>> I have a strange error when using logical replication between a 11.2
>> source database and a 12.3 target.
>>
>> If I create the publication with all needed tables (about 50) at
>> once, I get "duplicate key value violates unique constraint xxx_pkey"
>> errors during th
On 7/20/20 10:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Thomas Kellerer writes:
I have a strange error when using logical replication between a 11.2
source database and a 12.3 target.
If I create the publication with all needed tables (about 50) at
once, I get "duplicate key value violates unique constraint xxx_
Adrian Klaver writes:
> I'm probably missing something, but would that not result in a 'key not
> found' type of error. The OP is seeing "duplicate key value violates
> unique constraint xxx_pkey". To me that indicates a doubling up of at
> least some of the data replication.
[ squint... ] So
I have had this problem with logical replication on PG 10 repeatedly. In a
clean build no problem.
But if I am restarting replication because of some problem I’ve seen problems
with rows already present.
My own fix, which has worked in my shop, is to add replica triggers to check
for the row b
Hi all,
We need to apply some data management policies on read. We are considering
two approaches
1. Implement a postgres extension.
2. Implement a proxy that implements the PostgreSQL wire protocol.
We're trying to decide which approach to take and are leaning towards
implementing it as a
Matthew Tamayo-Rios schrieb am 20.07.2020 um 22:13:
Examples of behaviors we'd like to have:
* 'SELECT * FROM table;' should return masked versions of the columns based
on policy for that specific user.
* 'SELECT * FROM table;' should return just the columns accessible to a
specific user.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:36:26PM +0200, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> > * 'SELECT * FROM table;' should return masked versions of the columns
> > based on policy for that specific user.
> > * 'SELECT * FROM table;' should return just the columns accessible to a
> > specific user.
> >
> > Questi
> On Jul 18, 2020, at 14:18, Radoslav Nedyalkov wrote:
>
>
> Well. the vacuum full failed with
>
> vacuumdb: vacuuming of table "olap.transactions_and_fees_2020_01" in database
> "db" failed: ERROR: found xmin 3916900817 from before relfrozenxid 80319533
Do you have checksums enabled for
Adrian Klaver schrieb am 20.07.2020 um 16:45:
> On 7/20/20 7:22 AM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
>>> I have a strange error when using logical replication between a 11.2
>>> source database and a 12.3 target.
>>>
>>> If I create the publication with all needed tables (about 50) at
>>> once, I get "duplic
Tom Lane schrieb am 20.07.2020 um 20:04:
> Adrian Klaver writes:
>> I'm probably missing something, but would that not result in a 'key not
>> found' type of error. The OP is seeing "duplicate key value violates
>> unique constraint xxx_pkey". To me that indicates a doubling up of at
>> least some
John Ashmead schrieb am 20.07.2020 um 20:11:
> I have had this problem with logical replication on PG 10 repeatedly.
> In a clean build no problem.
>
> But if I am restarting replication because of some problem I’ve seen
> problems with rows already present.
>
> My own fix, which has worked in my s
26 matches
Mail list logo
