Hi,
You can check and verify the following points:
*Check the cpu resources on both primary and secondary
*Check the execution plans on both the primary and secondary by running
EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) for the problematic queries like the following
explain (analyze,buffers) select * from test ;
On 10/17/24 08:21, Carlos Oliva wrote:
Thank you, Erik.
That download installed fine. I must use v16.1 because I will be working
with a legacy application.
Should not make a difference.
For what changed between 16.1 and 16.4 see:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/release.html
*V/r.*
*
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 11:21 AM Carlos Oliva
wrote:
> Thank you, Erik.
>
> That download installed fine. I must use v16.1 because I will be working
> with a legacy application.
>
What does that have to do with whether you use 16.1 or 16.4? (Note that PG
point releases only fix bugs.)
--
Deat
On 2024-10-17 16:06 +0200, Carlos Oliva wrote:
> From where can I download v16.1? I can only find v16.4 in the EDB site.
https://get.enterprisedb.com/postgresql/postgresql-16.1-1-windows-x64.exe
I think they used to also link to older minor releases, but I can't find
that anymore.
But you shoul
Hello Experts!
We have a PgSQL instance running with HA (secondary is being in sync with
streaming replication). Both the ends, we have same version, but not sure a
few SQLs behave badly in the secondary:
Primary:
PostgreSQL 12.20 (Ubuntu 12.20-0ubuntu0.20.04.1) on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,
compiled b
>From where can I download v16.1? I can only find v16.4 in the EDB site.
V/r.
Carlos Oliva
This is great, thank you so much!
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:47 AM Asad Ali wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> I hope you're doing well. Based on your inquiry about PostgreSQL backups
> for your 100GB historical database with images, here are some suggestions
> that should help you achieve compressed, effi
Hello Michał,
Thanks for the reply. I suspected as much, I was just wondering if there
was an easy fix that didn't involve dropping the entire subscription and
having to re-do all the table because of that. Guess my only option is to
remove the affected tables from the publisher before the patch,
> On 17 Oct 2024, at 11:07, Koen De Groote wrote:
>
> Hello Muhammad,
>
> The problem with my scenario is the changes are written as a single
> transaction, with a BEGIN and COMMIT. In that transaction, there are first
> inserts, then a schema change, and then inserts on the new schema.
I
Hello Muhammad,
The problem with my scenario is the changes are written as a single
transaction, with a BEGIN and COMMIT. In that transaction, there are first
inserts, then a schema change, and then inserts on the new schema.
Doing as you said does not work. The subscriber will first complain it
10 matches
Mail list logo
