Kevin Grittner-5 wrote
> Frank Church <
> voipfc@
> > wrote:
>
>> I just want to start up postgres or pg_ctl process using a
>> different port, pointing to a different data directory and get it
>> running, with permissions etc working okay.
>
> I recommend you spend some time looking over the r
Frank Church wrote:
> I just want to start up postgres or pg_ctl process using a
> different port, pointing to a different data directory and get it
> running, with permissions etc working okay.
I recommend you spend some time looking over the relevant
documentation, trying to make it work, and
On 11/01/13 03:23, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Sergey Konoplev wrote:
As far as I know, the application programs do not make any
specific lock on the 'file' table. I'm not sure if it is caused
by the pgpool or something else.
[...]
2013-10-31 18:01:30 UTCLOG: sending cancel to blocking autovacu
=?UTF-8?B?R3J6ZWdvcnogVGHFhGN6eWs=?= writes:
> Did tsearch2 dictionary caching implementation improve after 8.3 on this
> matter?
Well, there was this:
Author: Tom Lane
Branch: master Release: REL9_1_BR [3e5f9412d] 2010-10-06 19:31:05 -0400
Reduce the memory requirement for large ispell d
On 11/02/2013 07:47 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 11/2/2013 11:03 AM, Grzegorz Tańczyk wrote:
Is there any way to limit total memory usage by postgres and keep
maximum connections limit? Postgresql.conf settings are default for
8.3.23. I need to have 100 connections in pool.
the size of your
On 11/2/2013 11:03 AM, Grzegorz Tańczyk wrote:
Is there any way to limit total memory usage by postgres and keep
maximum connections limit? Postgresql.conf settings are default for
8.3.23. I need to have 100 connections in pool.
the size of your connection pool shouldn't be much more than 2
Hello,
Recently I had some problem with tsearch2 in postgres 8.3. Application
was using JDBC connection pool and it was possible that each connection
from the pool used tsearch2(with dictionary) in some query. This
resulted in almost every postmaster process using >0.5g memory.
Solution of thi
Hello,
Recently I had some problem with tsearch2 in postgres 8.3. Application
was using JDBC connection pool and it was possible that each connection
from the pool used tsearch2(with dictionary) in some query. This
resulted in almost every postmaster process using >0.5g memory.
Solution of thi
Andy Colson writes:
> pg_dump is upset that my max_locks_per_transaction is too low. I've bumped
> it up several times (up to 600 so far) but now sure how many it needs.
> I'm merging 90 databases into a single database with 90 schemas. Each schema
> can have 500'ish tables. Do I need to set
On 11/2/2013 9:56 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
Well, what I showed is supposition on my part and is not necessarily
the truth. Part of the issue is discerning the truth of how
information flows through the system, in particular what exactly
is/are the application(s) talking to Postgres/pgBouncer. I
On 11/02/2013 08:11 AM, Rowan Collins wrote:
On 01/11/2013 13:58, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 11/01/2013 06:29 AM, Birta Levente wrote:
If I am following correctly the OP chain of connections as originally
set up and I believe still is:
End User --> port 8080 (Tomcat) --> port 5432 (Postgr
As I have seen, some database created or pre-allocate large physical files on
the file system to as the backend of the database tablespace.
For Postgresql, I have observed that it created several files in the base and
global directory.
It may be by design, what is the pros and cons of this beha
pg_dump is upset that my max_locks_per_transaction is too low. I've bumped it
up several times (up to 600 so far) but now sure how many it needs.
I'm merging 90 databases into a single database with 90 schemas. Each schema
can have 500'ish tables. Do I need to set max_locks_per_transaction
On 01/11/2013 13:58, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 11/01/2013 06:29 AM, Birta Levente wrote:
geoserver is using port 8080, some how they don't seem to be
speaking to
each other.
I don't know what is this geoserver, but this port 8080 I think it's not
relevant in this.
If I am following cor
DT writes:
> 1. What's the rule of index relation locking?
> 2. Releasing lock is for higher concurrency, but for INSERT/UPDATE, i did not
> find
>any operation that could get benefit from releasing index relation lock?
> Or to
>say : what will happen if we treat index relation lock lik
On 11/02/2013 04:58 AM, Francisco Olarte wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
Table1
Column | Type| Modifiers
--+---__+-__--__--
id | integer
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> Table1
>> Column | Type| Modifiers
>>
>> --+---__+-__--__--
>>
>> id | integer | not null default
>> next
17 matches
Mail list logo
