On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 23:50, Michael Harris wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 09:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Do you want to try this and see if it actually adds any robustness with
> > your buggy code?
>
> Sorry for the delayed response, & thanks for the patch.
>
> I wasn't able to test with our actu
On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 10:15 PM Guyren Howe wrote:
> There are huge developer benefits available to focusing more on making a
> great relational programming environment, well outside the SQL standard.
>
Sure
>
> Examples of small things Postgres could have:
>
>- *SELECT * - b.a_id from a na
Postgres has since the outset gone beyond the SQL standard in many ways :
types, inheritance, programmability, generality are all well beyond what SQL
used to mandate and still well beyond the current standard.
There are huge developer benefits available to focusing more on making a great
relat
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:23 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > ... I wondered about also removing the leftover comment
> > "We assume that any system that has Linux epoll() also has Linux
> > signalfd()" which was my attempt to explain that there wasn't a
> > separate configure check
Thomas Munro writes:
> ... I wondered about also removing the leftover comment
> "We assume that any system that has Linux epoll() also has Linux
> signalfd()" which was my attempt to explain that there wasn't a
> separate configure check for signalfd.h, but I guess the sentence is
> still true in
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:38 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Gabriela Serventi writes:
> > Hi! I'm trying to compile release 14.1 in a very old Linux Server (Red Hat
> > Enterprise Linux Server release 5.8). I can run configure successfully, but
> > when I try to run make, I get the following error:
> > lat
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 05:11:07AM +0530, Rama Krishnan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It was a famous interview question
>
> If the table contains multiple indexes what kind of performance issue or
> impact
> will be there.
Sure:
https://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2012.html#July_9_2012
Michael Harris writes:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 09:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Do you want to try this and see if it actually adds any robustness with your
>> buggy code?
> Sorry for the delayed response, & thanks for the patch.
> I wasn't able to test with our actual application because it could
>
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 09:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> Do you want to try this and see if it actually adds any robustness with your
> buggy code?
Sorry for the delayed response, & thanks for the patch.
I wasn't able to test with our actual application because it could
take days for it to actually trigg
Hi all,
It was a famous interview question
If the table contains multiple indexes what kind of performance issue or
impact will be there.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:24 PM Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> David G. Johnston schrieb am 09.02.2022 um 21:47:
> > You cannot defer uniqueness checks to transaction commit so either it
> > is going to fail on the insert or it will not fail at all.
>
> You can defer unique constraints, but not primary
David G. Johnston schrieb am 09.02.2022 um 21:47:
You cannot defer uniqueness checks to transaction commit so either it
is going to fail on the insert or it will not fail at all.
You can defer unique constraints, but not primary key constraints.
create table t
(
id integer
);
alter table t
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The convention on these lists is to inline or bottom post (and to trim the
> reply to just the pertinent parts).
Just for completeness, I expected this test to run without error. (I tried it
in PG Version 14.1).
create table t(k int primary key, v text n
The convention on these lists is to inline or bottom post (and to trim the
reply to just the pertinent parts).
On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 12:33 PM Brent Wood wrote:
> Because both statements are in the transaction, the delete is not fully
> actioned until the commit. So it still exists in the table
On 2/9/22 10:34, Brent Wood wrote:
My take on this...
Because both statements are in the transaction, the delete is not fully
actioned until the commit. So it still exists in the table when you try
to insert the record with the duplicate key.
No:
\d animals
Table "publ
Really appreciate the input thank you.
I shall try to provide a full script, I guess if the cascades are relevant
in going to have to also provide all of the indirect table creations and
all of the earlier inserts to those various tables.
At the very least I'll try to provide a fuller error messa
My take on this...
Because both statements are in the transaction, the delete is not fully
actioned until the commit. So it still exists in the table when you try to
insert the record with the duplicate key.
Check if the error is generated during the transaction or at the commit stage,
run it
On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 11:12 AM Andrew Hardy
wrote:
> Do I need some particular kind of settings on my transaction to be able to
> delete and insert afresh in the same transaction?
>
No. I cannot reproduce your claim with a trivial example on stock 13.5.
You will need to be less vague and at l
On 2/9/22 10:11 AM, Andrew Hardy wrote:
Hi,
When I:
Begin a transaction
DELETE from where id (PK) =
INSERT INTO VALUES ()
...
...
...
COMMIT
I get
insert into "itinerary" ("dk", "locator") values ($1, $2) - duplicate
key value violates unique constraint "itinerary_pkey"
= itinerary?
W
Hi,
When I:
Begin a transaction
DELETE from where id (PK) =
INSERT INTO VALUES ()
...
...
...
COMMIT
I get
insert into "itinerary" ("dk", "locator") values ($1, $2) - duplicate key
value violates unique constraint "itinerary_pkey"
Do I need some particular kind of settings on my transaction
Ludwig Isaac Lim writes:
> How do make sure that NIC will be listening every time I started/restarted
> the server?
You need to tell systemd not to start the postgresql service
until the network is up.
In basic cases, you can edit the postgresql.service file,
or maybe better create an add-on co
Hello:
I'm running postgresql 12.9 on Amazon Linux in AWS.
My listen_addresses in postgresql.conf is configured like below:
listen_addresses = '172.17.1.57,localhost'
However, postgresql does not listen on 172..17.1.57. I can reproduce the
phenomenon by simply rebooting the server and then r
On Thu, 2022-02-10 at 00:29 +0900, Abhishek Bhola wrote:
> > > I see there is an AUTOVACUUM job started on all the partitions that have
> > > been
> > > read (on which select has run). I am assuming the reason why Postgres is
> > > autovacuuming these large partitions is this:
> > >
> > > db=# SE
I see, but then why is the autovacuum getting triggered after the select
command?
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022, 12:14 AM Laurenz Albe
wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-02-09 at 17:29 +0900, Abhishek Bhola wrote:
> > I have a table with monthly partitions, starting from 2011.
> > Each partition has about 2-3 billion
On Wed, 2022-02-09 at 17:29 +0900, Abhishek Bhola wrote:
> I have a table with monthly partitions, starting from 2011.
> Each partition has about 2-3 billion rows and is about 40TB of data in total.
> I am running a select query to \copy the data into csv files for each month.
>
> I see there is a
Gabriela Serventi writes:
> Hi! I'm trying to compile release 14.1 in a very old Linux Server (Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux Server release 5.8). I can run configure successfully, but
> when I try to run make, I get the following error:
> latch.c:85:26: error: sys/signalfd.h: No such file or director
On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 23:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Aaron Sipser writes:
> > I am fairly confused about the locks generated by some partitioning code I
> > am using. The setup is that we have a partitioned table (call it P), and it
> > has a foreign key constraint to another table F. I'm trying to f
Hi! I'm trying to compile release 14.1 in a very old Linux Server (Red Hat
Enterprise Linux Server release 5.8). I can run configure successfully, but
when I try to run make, I get the following error:
latch.c:85:26: error: sys/signalfd.h: No such file or directory
Does anybody know if it is poss
I have a table with monthly partitions, starting from 2011.
Each partition has about 2-3 billion rows and is about 40TB of data in
total.
I am running a select query to \copy the data into csv files for each month.
I see there is an *AUTOVACUUM* job started on all the partitions that have
been rea
29 matches
Mail list logo
