Heyho!
On Thursday 19 August 2010 01.32:06 Benjamin Smith wrote:
> This way we can be sure that either all the databases are in synch, or
> that we need to rollback the program patch/update.
I guess this might be more a hack than a solution: do the updates in batches
and use 2pc: first connect
Could it be that I have too much memory allocated for postgresql? My resource
settings are:
shared_buffers = 94952
temp_buffers = 1GB
work_mem = 19339
maintenance_work_mem = 191845
max_stack_depth = 2MB
I'm running on a server with 3.7GB of RAM.
I will adjust the logging level and wait for anot
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 00:29 -0700, maxxe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Does this statement (UPDATE user SET email='newChangedVal',
> password='existingVal') requires updating an index on user.password?
> Or more generally, if an UPDATE includes an explicit but unchanged
> value for an index column, does po
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 16:32 -0700, Benjamin Smith wrote:
> So far, it's been a dream, but now, as we continue to grow, we're starting to
> reach connection limits per server. Short of raising the number of
> simultaneous connections, is there a way to run all the transactions for a
> single ser
Hello Benjamin,
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 16:32 -0700, Benjamin Smith wrote:
> Is there a way to update a number of databases hosted on a single server
> without opening a separate psql connection to each database?
I believe you are more interested in applying an atomic update for all
databases rat
On Aug 18, 2010, at 4:32 PM, Benjamin Smith wrote:
> Is there a way to update a number of databases hosted on a single server
> without opening a separate psql connection to each database?
>
> We have a cluster of servers hosting an application on Postgres. Right now,
> we
> have dozens of d
On Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:51:08 pm Brian Modra wrote:
> Maybe the best way to solve this is not to do automatic distribution
> of the data, but rather to provide tools for implementing distributed
> references and joins.
Here's my vote! I'd *LOVE* it if I could do a simple cross-database join
Is there a way to update a number of databases hosted on a single server
without opening a separate psql connection to each database?
We have a cluster of servers hosting an application on Postgres. Right now, we
have dozens of databases per server, enough that we're starting to have
problems
Hello all,
We upgraded our application servers to Apache 2.2.16 and upgraded our (hand
built) Perl of 5.10.1, mod_perl (for Catalyst) and the modules (such as DBI,
DBD::Pg) through CPAN. Our PostgreSQL server has not changed at all and it is
running 8.3.3.
Since the upgrade, we are noticing t
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Kyle R. Burton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm new to the list and not even sure if this is the right place to be
> posting this...
>
> I've worked through the documentation for postgres 9.0 (beta2) and
> have successfully set up a master and hot slave configured with
> str
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Joshua Tolley wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:10:30PM +1000, Data Growth Pty Ltd wrote:
>> Is there any significant performance problem associated with partitioning
>> a table into 2500 sub-tables? I realise a table scan would be horrendous,
>> but wha
Well in that sense, Oracle does cling to some old designs that suck for
most people's use-cases these days; most notably arbitrary-length indexable
text fields. In most Oracle-related applications you are stuck with
either an indexable nvarchar(4096) or an unindexable CLOB field (which
also requir
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> This is a memory dump and could be unrelated (or maybe not).
>> TopMemoryContext: 268428304 total in 26 blocks; 5528 free (22 chunks);
>> 268422776 used
That's an unreasonably large amount of stuff in TopMemoryContext :-(.
I wonder what caused that? It's not clear that
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:41 PM, John Gage wrote:
> P. P. S. You want to get to grandma's house. You want to drive a car. You
> want to learn to drive the car quickly.
You're driving to grandma's house because she needs cataract surgery.
You don't want to pay the surgeon, you just want to do it
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Data Growth Pty Ltd
wrote:
> I have a table of around 200 million rows, occupying around 50G of disk. It
> is slow to write, so I would like to partition it better.
>
How big do you expect your data to get? I have two tables partitioned
into 100 subtables using a
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Kyle R. Burton wrote:
> Is there any way to get PostgreSQL to bind to a new ip address and
> interface without actually shutting it down? If it could, would I
> need to break all the current (read only) client connections to get
> them to reconnect and have the abi
Excerpts from Jeremy Palmer's message of mar ago 17 22:59:08 -0400 2010:
>
> I'm getting infrequent backend crashes on a windows instance of PostgreSQL.
> The error I get is in the log below. It seems to relate to the share memory
> each time. Does anyone have any ideas what the problem is here,
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Glen Eustace wrote:
> Thanks Tom, that is pretty much the conclusion I came to. I think I need to
> close the db connection prior to the fork and then re-open in the new child.
>
Yes, you pretty much have to do this. I usually do the close
immediately after fork
Hi Kevin,
> Sorry; I didn't mean to be harsh.
I also overreacted, sorry about that.
Indeed the documentation is well done, as is the software itself =)
Thanks, Clemens
> Sometimes people coming from some other products aren't used to that
> -- I was just trying to point you in the direction of
I've been reading up on the documentation for WAL shipping and warm standby
configuration. One concern that I have (a common one, I'm sure) is that it
seems that after bringing a standby server up as primary, other standby
servers (including the original primary) need to be rebased before they can
"fka...@googlemail.com" writes:
> Thank you for the interesting link. I think, though, that
> this does not address the question why there is a delay
> between the point in time A that client 1 has successfully
> commited and the point in time B when client 2 can see all
> new rows!
There is no s
> -Original Message-
> From: Vikram Patil [mailto:vpa...@actuate.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:13 PM
> To: j...@commandprompt.com
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: Windows 2003 server installation issue
>
> Joshua,
>
> Thanks for reply. But I tried 8.4.
On Aug 18, 2010, at 6:57 AM, fka...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Even in pure serialization it should be possible
> that client 2 can immediately start reading *after* client 1
> has completely commited, shouldn't it?
Unless client 2 had previously started a transaction and is reading from that.
--
subscribe-set pgsql-general digest
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Yeb Havinga:
> fka...@googlemail.com wrote:
[...]
> > We have done a test with two connections to the database
> > on different computers. After the first client (writer)
> > had inserted new data into a quite simple table, it told
> > another client (by TCP communication) to be ready,
> > howe
No they all got killed off.
-Original Message-
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mag...@hagander.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 8:06 PM
To: Jeremy Palmer
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is
still in use
On W
fka...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi all,
If there is nothing else wrong in our test case we noticed
the following:
We have done a test with two connections to the database on
different computers. After the first client (writer) had
inserted new data into a quite simple table, it told another
clien
Hi all,
If there is nothing else wrong in our test case we noticed
the following:
We have done a test with two connections to the database on
different computers. After the first client (writer) had
inserted new data into a quite simple table, it told another
client (by TCP communication) to be
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 04:59, Jeremy Palmer wrote:
>
> I'm getting infrequent backend crashes on a windows instance of PostgreSQL.
> The error I get is in the log below. It seems to relate to the share memory
> each time. Does anyone have any ideas what the problem is here, or what
> additiona
29 matches
Mail list logo
