Re: Question about pg_upgrade from 9.2 to X.X

Hi seems this is unpackaged extension, usually installed prior 9.1 release. Maybe reorg even does not support "create extension" syntax. That was long ago and project homepage is unavailable now. pg_repack documentation mention "support for PostgreSQL 9.2 and EXTENSION packaging" as improvement

Re: master-> 2 hot standbys

Thank you. I made a mistake, our version is PostgreSQL 9.6.2 From: Ben Chobot Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 5:08 PM To: Julie Nishimura Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: master-> 2 hot standbys On Mar 4, 2019, at 1:59 PM, Julie Nishimura mailto:

VACUUM FREEZE and replication lag

Hello everyone, We have a very big table in our pg92 database that requires a manual vacuum freeze in order to keep sane number of transaction ids available. Yesterday we did a vacuum freeze on this table that took roughly 9 hours. After performing the operation we got back roughly 0.5 billion

Re: master-> 2 hot standbys

> On Mar 4, 2019, at 1:59 PM, Julie Nishimura wrote: > > Hello, > Our current master 9.2 has two active standbys. Can you please help me out > with the right sequence of events if we would like to promote one of current > standbys to master and convert master to standby? It depends on how yo

Re: Question about pg_upgrade from 9.2 to X.X

On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 02:21:11PM -0800, Perumal Raj wrote: > Does it mean that these functions are default and came with 9.2 ? > I am wondering how these functions are created in the DB as the > library($libdir/pg_reorg) is not exists in system I don't think it's default. But was probably insta

Re: Question about pg_upgrade from 9.2 to X.X

Hi Justin Does it mean that these functions are default and came with 9.2 ? I am wondering how these functions are created in the DB as the library($libdir/pg_reorg) is not exists in system Note: My schema name is reorg not pg_reorg On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:45 PM Justin Pryzby wrote: > On

master-> 2 hot standbys

Hello, Our current master 9.2 has two active standbys. Can you please help me out with the right sequence of events if we would like to promote one of current standbys to master and convert master to standby? Your help is appreciated. Thanks, Julie From: Julie

Re: Question about pg_upgrade from 9.2 to X.X

On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 01:37:30PM -0800, Perumal Raj wrote: > I could see bunch of functions under reorg schema. Those functions are the ones preventing you from upgrading. You should drop schema pg_reorg cascade. You can run it in a transaction first to see what it will drop. But after the upgra

Re: Question about pg_upgrade from 9.2 to X.X

Hi Justin I could see bunch of functions under reorg schema. AS '$libdir/pg_reorg', 'reorg_disable_autovacuum'; AS '$libdir/pg_reorg', 'reorg_get_index_keys'; AS '$libdir/pg_reorg', 'reorg_apply'; AS '$libdir/pg_reorg', 'reorg_drop'; AS '$libdir/pg_reorg', 'reorg_indexdef'; AS '$libdir/pg_reorg',

Re: Performance comparison between Pgsql 10.5 and Pgsql 11.2

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 AM Nicola Contu wrote: > Attached a part of the strace running the pgbench command for pg11 > Also attached strace_10 for pg10.6. That looks like strace output from pgbench, and I don't see any interesting differences between v10 and v11 (though I'm surprised to see it

Re: Optimizing Database High CPU

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:01 PM Michael Lewis wrote: > If those 50-100 connections are all active at once, yes, that is high. >> They can easily spend more time fighting each other over LWLocks, >> spinlocks, or cachelines rather than doing useful work. This can be >> exacerbated when you have m

Re: support for JSON Web Token

Hi Michel, Thanks for the reply. I will pitch in my view. My background comes from developing (mainly Java based) applications: La 03.03.2019 22:18, Michel Pelletier a scris: > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 4:09 PM Eugen Stan > wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to advocate

Re: Performance comparison between Pgsql 10.5 and Pgsql 11.2

Nicola Contu writes: > See attached perf report. The difference seems to be all in this line, but > not sure : > + 26.80% 0.00% 222 postmaster [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] system_call_fastpath That would suggest that many more kernel calls are happening, which is s

Re: Update does not move row across foreign partitions in v11

Based on a reply to reporting this as a bug, moving rows out of foreign partitions is not yet implemented so this is behaving as expected. There's a mention of this limitation in the Notes section of the Update docs. On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 6:12 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2019-Feb-22, Derek H

Re: Performance comparison between Pgsql 10.5 and Pgsql 11.2

Because I have 10.6 in production :) and I am comparing with what I will be loosing. And I read that in the release notes but as said in my first email, even with data_sync_retry=on (going back to previous behavior) doesn't make any difference. So I am looking for something that will keep my perfo

Re: Performance comparison between Pgsql 10.5 and Pgsql 11.2

> is there any reason why I am getting worse results using pgsql11.2 in writing comparing it with pgsql 10.6? >... And Yes both are compiled. Why 10.6? according to release notes "14th February 2019: PostgreSQL 11.2, 10.7, 9.6.12, 9.5.16, and 9.4.21 Released!" https://www.postgresql.org/about/ne

Re: Performance comparison between Pgsql 10.5 and Pgsql 11.2

I did a analyze in stages on both. And Yes both are compiled. This is the configure command (change 10.6 for PG10) ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/pgsql11.2 See attached perf report. The difference seems to be all in this line, but not sure : + 26.80% 0.00% 222 postmaster

Re: Where **not** to use PostgreSQL?

Thomas Güttler schrieb am 28.02.2019 um 12:47: > where would you suggest someone to **not** use PostgreSQL? > > Why would you do this? > > What alternative would you suggest instead? Due to the MVCC implementation, I would hesitate to use Postgres in environments that have an extremely high and