On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:06 AM Ron wrote:
> On 5/19/20 11:51 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 6:40 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Tory M Blue writes:
>> > The command i'm using is
>> > ALTER TABLE tablename SET WITHO
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 6:40 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Tory M Blue writes:
> > The command i'm using is
> > ALTER TABLE tablename SET WITHOUT OIDS;
> > Would a drop column oid be better?
>
> Unfortunately, you're kind of stuck. OIDs are not like regular columns
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Tory M Blue wrote:
>
> The db is only 2TB, these tables are about 50% of the DB.
>
>
> Just wondering what I can boost to give me some elevated temp performance
> for what I would think would be a fairly quick operation.
>
> Give this q
The db is only 2TB, these tables are about 50% of the DB.
Just wondering what I can boost to give me some elevated temp performance
for what I would think would be a fairly quick operation.
Give this query more work_mem? Mine are set pretty low, based on previous
performance notes, this is a 9.5
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:55 PM Tory M Blue wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:01 PM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:52 PM Tory M Blue wrote:
>> > It took the change but didn't help. So 10GB of shared_buffers in 12 is
>> st
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:09 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 11, 2020, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
>
>> Repost, edited subject by mistake...
>>
>> On Monday, May 11, 2020, Tory M Blue wrote:
>>>
>>> A
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:01 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:52 PM Tory M Blue wrote:
> > It took the change but didn't help. So 10GB of shared_buffers in 12 is
> still a no go. I'm down to 5GB and it works, but this is the same hardware,
> the sam
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:57 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Tory M Blue writes:
> > That may be the next step in the lab, but was hoping someone knew of a
> > significant difference.
>
> I think we've made it perfectly clear that we don't. There's
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 7:57 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 11, 2020, Tory M Blue wrote:
>
>> I'll keep digging, but i'm hesitant to do my multiple TB db's with half
>>>> of their shared buffer
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 2:08 PM Tory M Blue wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:36 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Tory M Blue writes:
>> > 12 will not start at 10GB, even though it's the same hardware, same
>> config
>> > file, same physical box, sa
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:36 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Tory M Blue writes:
> > 12 will not start at 10GB, even though it's the same hardware, same
> config
> > file, same physical box, same everything, just version 12 vs 9.5
>
> For me, using all-default settings (
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:36 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Tory M Blue writes:
> > 12 will not start at 10GB, even though it's the same hardware, same
> config
> > file, same physical box, same everything, just version 12 vs 9.5
>
> For me, using all-default settings (
Upgraded from 9.5 to 12 and 12 would not start with the current configured
Shared Buffers.
Same hardware, same config file.
Which tells me something has changed, are there new default settings in the
12 postgresql.conf file that are not being called out in my 9.5 config file
that could be the cau
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:39 PM Laurenz Albe
wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 13:33 -0700, Tory M Blue wrote:
> > I hadn't noticed this until today, but a running 9.5 system with buffers
> at 10GB starts
> > and has been running years without issues. (15GB available)
>
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:41 PM Laurenz Albe
wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 11:55 -0700, Tory M Blue wrote:
> > Going from 9.5 to 12 and 2 times now, I've had a password either go
> missing or munged.
> > I've had to add an alter statement at the end of the upgrade.
&
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:32 PM Adrian Klaver
wrote:
> On 5/7/20 12:24 PM, Tory M Blue wrote:
> > Yes same password, I'm using a basic alter command to put the right
> > password back.
> >
> > I'm doing another upgrade in an hour, and will do some more ch
I hadn't noticed this until today, but a running 9.5 system with buffers at
10GB starts and has been running years without issues. (15GB available)
Postgres 12 will not start with that configuration, complaining about
memory availability. So Postgres12 won't start until shared buffers is
6GB, but
me know
Tory
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:08 PM Adrian Klaver
wrote:
> On 5/7/20 11:55 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
> > Going from 9.5 to 12 and 2 times now, I've had a password either go
> > missing or munged. I've had to add an alter statement at the end of the
> > upgrade
Going from 9.5 to 12 and 2 times now, I've had a password either go missing
or munged. I've had to add an alter statement at the end of the upgrade.
The DB is functioning fine, shut it down, do the upgrade and the password
is munged. Seems like an odd occurrence, we have not noted any other weird
Finally found it
http://bajis-postgres.blogspot.com/2014/04/anyone-wants-to-change-tablespaces.html
Thanks
Tory
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:40 PM Tory M Blue wrote:
> Many decades ago (small fib).
>
> There was a write up of someone stopping the postgres upgrade at a certain
> poin
Many decades ago (small fib).
There was a write up of someone stopping the postgres upgrade at a certain
point, editing a file with the table locations and then restarting the
upgrade process.
"Now, what are you trying to do?"
I have version specific directories (good for you), but...
/pgsql/9.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 2:05 PM PT wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:34:19 -0700 (MST)
> greigwise wrote:
>
> > Well, I've been unsuccessful so far on creating a standalone test.
> >
> > I have put some scripting in place to capture some additional
> information on
> > the server with the out of m
> On Dec 19, 2017, at 08:15, Rakesh Kumar wrote:
>
> Has AWS Aurora started supporting PG 10. Their website still talks about 9.6.
>
> Thanks
>
Actually in us-west-1 9.x is not even available
Tory
23 matches
Mail list logo
