>
> On Oct 30, 2023 at 7:00 PM, Paul Försterwrote:
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> > On Oct 30, 2023, at 01:56, Michael Paquierwrote:
> >
> > > - Enable checksums on the previous primary.
> > - Start the previous primary to be a standby of the node you failed
> > over to.
On Mon, 2023-10-30 at 08:59 -0700, David Ventimiglia wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 8:46 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-10-30 at 08:05 -0700, David Ventimiglia wrote:
> > > Can someone help me develop a good mental model for estimating PostgreSQL
> > > throughput?
> > > Here's what I m
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023, 19:34 Paul Förster, wrote:
>
>
> Just to be sure I understand you correctly: This does not work with
> Patroni?
>
That's not what I said.
Patroni only manages Postgres. It is exactly the same Postgres as you would
run it without Patroni.
Everything will work.
Regards,
--
Al
Hi Alexander,
> On Oct 30, 2023, at 14:56, Alexander Kukushkin wrote:
...
> But anyway, Patroni is orthogonal to pg_checksums.
...
Just to be sure I understand you correctly: This does not work with Patroni?
Cheers
Paul
Hi,
I am in need of an infrastructure set up for data analytics / live video
stream analytics application using big data and analytics technology..
The data is basically right now stored as structured data(no video
streaming) in PostgresDatabase. ( Its an emergency call handling solution,
In
On 10/30/23 10:45 AM, Atul Kumar wrote:
Hi,
I have postgres version 12 running on centos 7.
I found an entry in my pg_hba.conf entry as given below under IPV4
connections:
host all all /0 md5
I could not understand the meaning of "/0" here.
as I know that each IPV4 there are total 4
> So please help me in explaining its prompt meaning and how IP will be read
> with /0?
It means no subnet mask so it will match all IP addresses.
Hi,
I have postgres version 12 running on centos 7.
I found an entry in my pg_hba.conf entry as given below under IPV4
connections:
host all all /0 md5
I could not understand the meaning of "/0" here.
as I know that each IPV4 there are total 4 octets and each octet will be
read based on
Thanks! Let's say there are 10 cores, the workload is not CPU bound, and
there is a connection pooler like pgBouncer in place. Would the number of
operations more likely be:
- 1000 ms / total ms per operation * number of cores = 1000 ms / 101 ms
* 10 = ~100
- 1000 ms / total ms per oper
On Mon, 2023-10-30 at 08:05 -0700, David Ventimiglia wrote:
> Can someone help me develop a good mental model for estimating PostgreSQL
> throughput?
> Here's what I mean. Suppose I have:
> * 1000 connections
> * typical query execution time of 1ms
> * but additional network latency of 100ms
>
Hello!
Can someone help me develop a good mental model for estimating PostgreSQL
throughput? Here's what I mean. Suppose I have:
- 1000 connections
- typical query execution time of 1ms
- but additional network latency of 100ms
What if at all would be an estimate of the number of oper
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 at 14:46, Ron wrote:
> Erroneously thinking that Percona develops Patroni. :D
>
IIRC, they may have made one or two contributions, but very minor.
But anyway, Patroni is orthogonal to pg_checksums.
As Michael already said, the following workflow works just fine (I did it
doz
On 10/30/23 08:18, Paul Förster wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Oct 30, 2023, at 11:03, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
On 2023-10-29 13:26:27 -0500, Ron wrote:
Best to ask Percona.
Why Percona?
Probably a typo. Patroni is used.
Erroneously thinking that Percona develops Patroni. :D
--
Born in Arizona, moved
On Mon, 2023-10-30 at 13:53 +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le lun. 30 oct. 2023 à 13:45, Luca Ferrari a écrit :
> > I have a table that presents an xmax not zeroed outside of a
> > transaction block, and it does not look normal to me.
> > I have no idea about how this happened, it is one of my
Hi Peter,
> On Oct 30, 2023, at 11:03, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> On 2023-10-29 13:26:27 -0500, Ron wrote:
>> Best to ask Percona.
>
> Why Percona?
Probably a typo. Patroni is used.
Cheers
Paul
Hi Michael,
> On Oct 30, 2023, at 01:56, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Hm? Page checksums are written when a page is flushed to disk, we
> don't set them for dirty buffers or full-page writes included in WAL,
> so it should be OK to do something like the following:
> - Stop cleanly a standby.
> -
Hi,
Le lun. 30 oct. 2023 à 13:45, Luca Ferrari a écrit :
> Hi all,
> I have a table that presents an xmax not zeroed outside of a
> transaction block, and it does not look normal to me.
> I have no idea about how this happened, it is one of my "toy"
> PostgreSQL virtual machines.
> But how to di
Hi all,
I have a table that presents an xmax not zeroed outside of a
transaction block, and it does not look normal to me.
I have no idea about how this happened, it is one of my "toy"
PostgreSQL virtual machines.
But how to dig an better understand why there is an xmax with a non-zero value?
I've
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
So the question is: how to maintain the physical order of the tuples?
Answering to myself, there doesn't seem to be any way to run pg_repack on
a table without a UNIQUE key.
To run CLUSTER, the only way I see is to:
1. Create a btree index on t
it doesn't seem like a hardware issue because we have over 20 machines
running and 5 of them have been experiencing this issue recently.
we have encountered problems before with antivirus software causing the
database to hang, so we are also considering if other software on the Windows
operat
On 2023-10-29 13:26:27 -0500, Ron wrote:
> On 10/29/23 12:57, Paul Förster wrote:
> > Safe in the sense that, if I enable checksums on a replica, switch
> > over and the enable checksums on the other side, if this is ok, or
> > whether future mutations on the primary will corrupt the replica.
>
>
On 2023-10-30 09:56:31 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hm? Page checksums are written when a page is flushed to disk, we
> don't set them for dirty buffers or full-page writes included in WAL,
> so it should be OK to do something like the following:
> - Stop cleanly a standby.
> - Run pg_checksums
On 2023-10-29 12:45:08 -0400, p...@pfortin.com wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 16:16:05 +0100 Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> >However, the table statistics contain an estimate for the number of
> >rows:
> >
> >hjp=> select schemaname, relname, n_live_tup from pg_stat_user_tables order
> >by 3 desc;
> >╔═
23 matches
Mail list logo
