Re: [SQL] [ADMIN] PostgreSQL Active-Active Configuration
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:20 +0100, Iñigo Martinez Lasala wrote: > For example, if you use functions or sentences that make use of > timestamp, random, etc it won't be possible to use pg_pool since each > node will have a different value. > If not, it could probably work for you. FWIW, timestamps are rewritten in recent pgpool versions to avoid such issues. However, similar problems exist for serial, etc. -HTH. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[SQL] client_timezone to server_timezone and reverse
HELO i am looking for strange things: a timezone conversion AS transparent AS a charset encoding conversion are. for __example__ (not intending to override the current behavior) i want to see now()::timestampTZ always the same (the server side time with the timezone predefined firmly) and to see now()::timeztamp calculated according to the client_timezone setting whatever the user set it to. In addition to the current behavior it whould be NICE to cast timestamTZ to timestamp taking in account a shift between server and client time, if client specified his TZ. -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
Re: [SQL] PostgreSQL Active-Active Configuration
You may want to try Bucardo ... By performance, are you referring to latency? If so, bandwidth between sites typically is the factor with latency in any replication solution. http://bucardo.org/ -Original Message- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Clements Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 1:25 AM To: [email protected]; pgsql-sql Subject: [SQL] PostgreSQL Active-Active Configuration Hi everyone, I am looking for some Master-Master replication solutions for PostgreSQL database. Please let me know if you are using one and if you are happy with the performance. Thanks -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
[SQL] Does IMMUTABLE property propagate?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Given f1(x) as IMMUTABLE and f2(x) as IMMUTABLE, and f3(f1,f2) as IMMUTABLE, does the query planner cache the result of f3 and reuse it or if you want to get a little more speed you better explicitly define yourself f3 as IMMUTABLE? I had an aggregate query like: select id, sum(p1*f1(a)/f2(b) as r1, sum(p2*f1(a)/f2(b) as r2, ... sum(pn*f1(a)/f2(b) as rn ... group by id; Where f1(x) and f2(x) were defined as IMMUTABLE. By the experiments I ran looks like after defining a new function f3(a,b):= f1(a)/f2(b) and rewriting the query as: select id, sum(p1*f3(a,b) as r1, sum(p2*f3(a,b) as r2, ... sum(pn*f3(a,b) as rn ... group by id; *Looks like* I got a little (5%) improvement in performance of the query. Is there a way to find out if the function is re-evaluated each time? Is this the recommended way to proceed? Thank you! Petru Ghita -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuRwYQACgkQt6IL6XzynQTHEgCffi2QMWkkvTIsuglsanvcUyRB I+wAoKr22B7FJJVDCssGKGwB8zr4NjQG =V/BS -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
