On 11/1/2011 8:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Roger Niederland writes:
I extracted the tables from the database which generates the error above
I eliminated most of the columns such that this query still exhibits
this behavior to reduce
the file size. I have a zipped file from windows postgresql 9.1
On 02/11/2011, at 2:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Royce Ausburn writes:
>> [ random() is evaluated only once in ]
>> test=# select (select random()) from generate_series(1,10); -- rows are the
>> same
>
>> I understand that it's likely an optimisation thing -- postgres knows
>> that the subselect d
Hi,
On 2 November 2011 02:00, Debasis Mishra wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your replay. I just wanna know whether it is required for
> me to run initdb or setting the PGDATA environment variable is enough?
Master needs to be properly initialised & configured
- install postgres
- run initdb
- install
Tom,
Well... there's a lot of data hiding in each of those rows... as much as 4MB in
each. I'll make allowances in my code so that adding a column without a
default is a workable solution.
Thank you,
Eric
On Nov 1, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Eric Smith writes:
>> Thank you for the
Roger Niederland writes:
> I extracted the tables from the database which generates the error above
> I eliminated most of the columns such that this query still exhibits
> this behavior to reduce
> the file size. I have a zipped file from windows postgresql 9.1.1
> (32-bit) which is about 1.5
Eric Smith writes:
> Thank you for the response... to be perfectly honest, I don't know enough to
> know what I'm not telling you. Below is the string I use to create the
> table, so you can see the contents. I don't think I have foreign key
> references or triggers of any kind. Any ideas? (
Royce Ausburn writes:
> [ random() is evaluated only once in ]
> test=# select (select random()) from generate_series(1,10); -- rows are the
> same
> I understand that it's likely an optimisation thing -- postgres knows
> that the subselect doesn't depend on the FROM rows so it evaluates it
> on
On 11/1/2011 3:54 PM, Roger Niederland wrote:
Hello,
I stripped down the original query to what is below. I am not saying
that the query below
is useful except to show an error I am getting in Postgresql 9.1.1 on
both SL6.1 (64 bit) and
Windows 2008 server 9.1.1 (32-bit and 64-bit). The e
Roger Niederland writes:
> I stripped down the original query to what is below. I am not saying
> that the query below
> is useful except to show an error I am getting in Postgresql 9.1.1 on
> both SL6.1 (64 bit) and
> Windows 2008 server 9.1.1 (32-bit and 64-bit). The error I am getting is:
I think you need exclusive access to the table in order to add columns (I'll
stand/sit corrected if the more experienced responders say different). I've
found that you have to either wait for them to get off or kill them first (as
in pg_ctl kill ABRT).
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.or
Thanks! Half the problem searching the 'Net for answers is knowing what it's
called.
Regards,
Bill Thoen
GISnet
http://gisnet.com
303-786-9961
On Nov 1, 2011, at 10:01 AM, "James B. Byrne" wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:51:02 -0600
>> From: Bill Thoen
>> To: Postgrresql
>> Subject:
Thank you for the response... to be perfectly honest, I don't know enough to
know what I'm not telling you. Below is the string I use to create the table,
so you can see the contents. I don't think I have foreign key references or
triggers of any kind. Any ideas? (this is 8.3 running on Mac O
I'm having trouble understanding why these two queries produce different
results:
test=# select (select random()) from generate_series(1,10); -- rows are the same
?column?
---
0.770797704812139
0.770797704812139
0.770797704812139
0.770797704812139
0.770797704812139
Thanks Ondrej Ivanic,
Thanks a lot for your replay. I just wanna know whether it is required for
me to run initdb or setting the PGDATA environment variable is enough?
Thanks,
Debasis
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Regarding-the-shared-disk-fail-ove
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Samba wrote:
>
> But how do I disable streaming replication, with the effect that both WAL
> sender on master and WAL receiver on slave gets stopped? Similarly, when I
> enable streaming replication, the WAL sender and WAL receiver processes
> would need to be start
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:51:02 -0600
> From: Bill Thoen
> To: Postgrresql
> Subject: Need Help With a A Simple Query That's Not So
> Simple
> Message-ID: <4eaf2656.6020...@gisnet.com>
>
> I think this should be easy, but I can't seem to put the
> SQL together correctly and would appreciate an
Update on this:
We did a switchover to another machine with the same hardware, however
this system was running on some older parameters we had set in the
postgresql.conf file.
So we went from 400 max_connections to 200 max_connections, and 160MB
work_mem to 200MB work_mem. And now on this ot
Brian Fehrle writes:
> Update on this:
> We did a switchover to another machine with the same hardware, however
> this system was running on some older parameters we had set in the
> postgresql.conf file.
> So we went from 400 max_connections to 200 max_connections, and 160MB
> work_mem to 200
Andrew Hammond writes:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm ... pg_toast_2619 is pg_statistic's toast table. Is this 9.0.x,
>> and are you by any chance in the habit of running CLUSTER or VACUUM FULL
>> on your system catalogs? Could one have been running in the background
Hello,
I stripped down the original query to what is below. I am not saying
that the query below
is useful except to show an error I am getting in Postgresql 9.1.1 on
both SL6.1 (64 bit) and
Windows 2008 server 9.1.1 (32-bit and 64-bit). The error I am getting is:
ERROR: variable not found
On October 31, 2011 03:01:19 PM Stephen Denne wrote:
> I'm wondering whether it's worth doing anyway, simply to check that it
> doesn't do something completely unexpected, which would presumably alert
> us to something we hadn't considered.
>
Testing is always worthwhile, if only to ensure that P
Hi all,
I read in pg mail archives that postgresql-9.1 release added support or
pausing and resuming (or disabling and enabling) streaming replication but
could not find any relevant configuration settings for achieving the same.
the closest that i could find so far are:
replication_timeout (in
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:09 PM, patrick keshishian
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, William E. Moreno A.
>> wrote:
>>> Solution: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-12/msg01339.php
>>> Solution: Message-id: <476d
Hi,
Thanks for the patch, tested and it working fine.
Regards
Louis
>
>From: Satoshi Nagayasu
>To: "mailtolouis2020-postg...@yahoo.com"
>Cc: Tom Lane ; Postgres
>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 5:51 AM
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pglesslog for Postgres 9.1.1
>
>Hi
24 matches
Mail list logo
