At Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:25:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
> Kyotaro Horiguchi writes:
> > Isn't ROUTING MAPPING [1] that? Definers should define one at their
> > own risk as table constraints are.
>
> Hmm. It looks like that patch is moribund, and I can't say that I'm
> excited about reviving it.
On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 04:31:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
! Peter writes:
! > flowmdev=> select * from flows;
! > message type 0x44 arrived from server while idle
! > message type 0x44 arrived from server while idle
! > message type 0x44 arrived from server while idle
!
! Oh ... that does look pr
Kyotaro Horiguchi writes:
> At Thu, 09 Jan 2020 14:12:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
>> If SQL/MED has a notion of a "foreign function" that is only executable on
>> the remote side, and that fails if you try to execute it locally, then
>> it'd make sense to implement that feature and then expect p
At Thu, 09 Jan 2020 14:12:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > I agree with all of that- but it seems like we've got people asking for
> > it, and I can understand why they are, and therefore I'd be inclined to
> > provide a way for users to get that behavior and I'm even incl
On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 03:14:59PM +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> If you can afford that, this is the cleanest and easiest procedure you could
> find.
>
> Note that pg_basebackup need an empty PGDATA, so it will have to transfert the
> whole instance from new promoted primary to the or
Peter writes:
> I don't think this has anything to do with "pg". Just checked: I get
> garbage and misbehaviour on the "psql" command line tool also:
> $ psql -h myhost flowmdev
> psql (12.1)
> GSSAPI-encrypted connection
> Type "help" for help.
> flowmdev=> select * from flows;
> message type
Matthew Woodcraft writes:
> In an INSERT, are the rows guaranteed to be inserted in the order that
> the source query returns its rows, for locking purposes?
I dunno that we "guarantee" that, but it's hard to see why the
code would behave any differently, at present.
> and I run two concurrent c
On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 10:47:00AM -0800, Adrian Klaver wrote:
!
! Might want to take at below:
!
! https://github.com/ged/ruby-pg/issues/311
Thanks a lot! That option
> gssencmode: "disable"
seems to solve the issue.
But I think the people there are concerned by a different issue: they
are bot
On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 01:48:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
! Peter writes:
! > with 12.1, after a couple of queries, at a random place, the clientlib
! > does produce a failed query without giving reason or error-message [1].
! > Then when retrying, the clientlib switches off signal handling and
!
In an INSERT, are the rows guaranteed to be inserted in the order that
the source query returns its rows, for locking purposes?
For example, if have
CREATE TABLE foo (
foo_id INTEGER,
PRIMARY KEY (foo_id)
);
and I run two concurrent copies of
INSERT INTO foo (SELECT n FROM ... ORDER B
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 11:03 PM Michael Lewis wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 8:52 PM github kran wrote:
>
>> You are right on RDS but I believe the problem is on Aurora PostgreSQL
>> where the pglogical throws an error during installation. Are you aware if
>> this works on Aurora PostGreSQL
>>
Thank you Peter, this is wildly helpful.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 7:52 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 2020-01-08 23:55, Mike Lissner wrote:
> > That's a great point, thanks. The DROP SUBSCRIPTION notes say you can:
> >
> >> Disassociate the subscription from the replication slot by executing ALT
Hello,
We encounter the following problem with ESQL/C: Imagine a table with two
columns: CHAR(16) and DATE
The CHAR column can contain not only 16 bytes, but 16 Unicode chars,
which are longer than 16 bytes if one or more of the chars is a UTF-8 multibyte
encoded.
If one provides in C a host str
Stephen Frost writes:
> I agree with all of that- but it seems like we've got people asking for
> it, and I can understand why they are, and therefore I'd be inclined to
> provide a way for users to get that behavior and I'm even inclined to
> say that pushing down should be the 'default' if every
Peter writes:
> with 12.1, after a couple of queries, at a random place, the clientlib
> does produce a failed query without giving reason or error-message [1].
> Then when retrying, the clientlib switches off signal handling and
> sits inactive in memory (needs kill -9).
Seems like you'd better
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> There is, AFAIK, no provision for that. There's not a lot of
> >> reason to consider adding it either, because there's no reason
> >> to suppose that the remote node can run
On 1/9/20 10:18 AM, Peter wrote:
Hi folks,
with 12.1, after a couple of queries, at a random place, the clientlib
does produce a failed query without giving reason or error-message [1].
Then when retrying, the clientlib switches off signal handling and
sits inactive in memory (needs kill -9).
T
Hi folks,
with 12.1, after a couple of queries, at a random place, the clientlib
does produce a failed query without giving reason or error-message [1].
Then when retrying, the clientlib switches off signal handling and
sits inactive in memory (needs kill -9).
The server log shows no error or oth
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> There is, AFAIK, no provision for that. There's not a lot of
>> reason to consider adding it either, because there's no reason
>> to suppose that the remote node can run such a function any
>> faster than the local node.
> Also, I
I think you might create a block "Begin-Commit", before procedure call.
El 2020-01-09 12:15, Michael Lewis escribió:
when I manually mocking the data into both tables are fine and when
I run the procedure, I get errorcode: 42P10 MSG: there is no unique
or exclusion constraint matching on the CON
>
> when I manually mocking the data into both tables are fine and when I run
> the procedure, I get errorcode: 42P10 MSG: there is no unique or exclusion
> constraint matching on the CONFLICT specification
>
> the procedure is
>
...
> INSERT INTO ecisdrdm.bnft_curr_fact AS prod (bnft_fact_id,
>
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> shigeo Hirose writes:
> > How can I pushdown of functions used in targetlist with FDW ?
>
> There is, AFAIK, no provision for that. There's not a lot of
> reason to consider adding it either, because there's no reason
> to suppose that the rem
I have table and partitioned for year year like this:
CREATE TABLE ecisdrdm.bnft_curr_fact (bnft_fact_id numeric(38),
bene_cntry_of_brth_id numeric(38), bene_cntry_of_rsdc_id numeric(38),
bene_cntry_of_ctznshp_id numeric(38), frm_id numeric(38), svc_ctr_id
numeric(38), actn_dt_in_id numer
>
> If rows are added, deleted etc from specific child tables of a partition is
> it necessary when performing an analyze to analyze the entire partition or
> just the children that experienced the row changes?
Under the hood each partition is a separate table, so why is analyzing entire
paren
On 2020-01-08 23:55, Mike Lissner wrote:
That's a great point, thanks. The DROP SUBSCRIPTION notes say you can:
Disassociate the subscription from the replication slot by executing ALTER
SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (slot_name = NONE). After that, DROP SUBSCRIPTION will no
longer attempt any actions
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 06:55:18 -0500
Rita wrote:
> Thanks for the response.
> I am using Postgresql 11.
> I want something simple and I have a strong preference toward using stock
> tools. After the promotion and the original master comes online, I was
> thinking of doing a pg_basebackup to sync. An
Thanks for the response.
I am using Postgresql 11.
I want something simple and I have a strong preference toward using stock
tools. After the promotion and the original master comes online, I was
thinking of doing a pg_basebackup to sync. Any thoughts about that? I had a
very hard time with pg_rewi
If rows are added, deleted etc from specific child tables of a partition is it
necessary when performing an analyze to analyze the entire partition or just
the children that experienced the row changes?
28 matches
Mail list logo
