On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM, John McKown
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Merlin Moncure
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Bill Moran
> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:32:09 +0200
> >> Marius Grama wrote:
> >>> Can anybody explain me what happens in the background
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Xiang Gan writes:
> > OK. So a stupid question, whether there is any possibility to run
> Postgresql as root? (I know this is forbidden generally. But what I find
> out is that in Linux FriendlyArm environment, root could create socket
> while n
Hi,
I am working with a vendor and planning to deploy their application on
PostgreSQL as backend. They have cautioned the customer that PostgreSQL's
jdbc driver v9.1 (build 900) has issues which causes deadlocks while "wide
record inserts".
Is there any such known problem which anyone else has en
Its version 9.3.5, whats interesting the that the table grew in size after
the vacuum full, which I did to try to see why the auto vacuum wasn¹t
working.
However, after I stopped the PostgreSQL slave instance, then vacuum full
did result in a much much smaller size, as expected. So it appears to be
It 9.3.5 and I did the manual vacuum to try to see where the problem might
be.
On 9/22/14, 4:04 PM, "Adrian Klaver" wrote:
>On 09/22/2014 01:42 PM, Joel Avni wrote:
>> I noticed that tables on my master PostgreSQL server were growing, and
>> running vacuum full analyze on them actually made them
Xiang Gan writes:
> OK. So a stupid question, whether there is any possibility to run Postgresql
> as root? (I know this is forbidden generally. But what I find out is that in
> Linux FriendlyArm environment, root could create socket while non-root user
> does not have such privilege)
So, it's
OK. So a stupid question, whether there is any possibility to run Postgresql as
root? (I know this is forbidden generally. But what I find out is that in Linux
FriendlyArm environment, root could create socket while non-root user does not
have such privilege)
Kind regards,
Gerry
On 09/22/2014
Dean Toader writes:
> Can anyone see an increased possibility of deadlock occurring with
> ANALYZE VERBOSE (initiated by vacuumdb -a --analyze-only --verbose -U
> postgres
> command run once every 24 hrs on a cronjob schedule), VACUUM (initiated by
> autovacuum)
> and say ... a long running
I’ve got a question on postgresql locking:
I managed to get a SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE while running the following
/opt/pgsql/bin/vacuumdb -a --analyze-only --verbose -U postgres
While the above is running, I started another session and connected to the
database
getting analyzed in the first term
On 09/22/2014 01:42 PM, Joel Avni wrote:
I noticed that tables on my master PostgreSQL server were growing, and
running vacuum full analyze on them actually made them even bigger.
First what version of Postgres are you using?
Second VACUUM FULL is usually not recommended for the reason you fou
I noticed that tables on my master PostgreSQL server were growing, and running
vacuum full analyze on them actually made them even bigger.
At the same time, a slave PostgreSQL server had fallen behind in trying to
replicate, and was stuck in constantly looping over ‘started streaming WAL from
p
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:46:21 -0700
> From: pie...@hogranch.com
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] large table
>
> On 9/22/2014 12:33 PM, Luke Coldiron wrote:
> >
> > It is possible and that is part of what I am trying to discover
> > however I am very familiar with
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:46:21 -0700
John R Pierce wrote:
> On 9/22/2014 12:33 PM, Luke Coldiron wrote:
> >
> > It is possible and that is part of what I am trying to discover
> > however I am very familiar with the system / code base and in this
> > case there is a single process updating the ti
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:15:27 -0700
Luke Coldiron wrote:
> > > I'd guess that some other process held a transaction open for a
> > > couple of week, and that prevented any vacuuming from taking
> > > place.
> > >
> Interesting idea, on the surface I'm not sure how this would have
> happened in th
On 9/22/2014 12:33 PM, Luke Coldiron wrote:
It is possible and that is part of what I am trying to discover
however I am very familiar with the system / code base and in this
case there is a single process updating the timestamp and a single
process reading the timestamp. There are no other u
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:38:52 -0400
> From: wmo...@potentialtech.com
> To: lukecoldi...@hotmail.com
> CC: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] large table
>
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:17:05 -0700
> Luke Coldiron wrote:
>
> > I am trying to figure out what would have caused a t
> > From: ahodg...@simkin.ca
> > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] large table
> > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:34:45 -0700
> >
> > On Monday, September 22, 2014 11:17:05 AM Luke Coldiron wrote:
> > > The actual size of the table is around 33 MB.
> > > The myFunc function is
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:17:05 -0700
Luke Coldiron wrote:
> I am trying to figure out what would have caused a table in a PostgreSQL
> 8.4.16 to get into a state where there is only 1 live tuple and has only ever
> had one 1 tuple but the size of the table is huge.
>
> CREATE TABLE public.myTabl
On Monday, September 22, 2014 11:17:05 AM Luke Coldiron wrote:
> The actual size of the table is around 33 MB.
> The myFunc function is called every 2.5 seconds and the wasUpdated function
> every 2 seconds by separate processes. I realize that running a FULL VACUUM
> or CLUSTER command on the tabl
I am trying to figure out what would have caused a table in a PostgreSQL 8.4.16
to get into a state where there is only 1 live tuple and has only ever had one
1 tuple but the size of the table is huge.
CREATE TABLE public.myTable( myColumn timestamp with time zone NOT NULL);
Note: there is no
David G Johnston writes:
> In the end the two questions are:
> 1) does adding a length restriction cause a table rewrite?
Yes. In principle the restriction could be checked with just a scan,
not a rewrite, but ALTER TABLE doesn't currently understand that --- and
in any case a scan would still b
Merlin Moncure-2 wrote
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:40 AM, John McKown
> <
> john.archie.mckown@
> > wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Merlin Moncure <
> mmoncure@
> > wrote:
>>> I'll pile on here: in almost 20 years of professional database
>>> development I've never had an actual pr
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:15:36AM -0500, Neil Tiffin wrote:
> >>> Can you confirm that your software is SHA-256 Compliant?
> >
> > Postgres's SSL certificate & key live at the value of ssl_cert_file
> > and ssl_key_file in your postgresql.conf. Why not point it at a
> > SHA-256 certificate, rest
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:40 AM, John McKown
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> I'll pile on here: in almost 20 years of professional database
>> development I've never had an actual problem that was solved by
>> introducing or shortening a length constraint to t
Sorry guess I wasn't being as clear as I thought. To be a bit more
precise, I really think that validation should occur _first_ at the
point of entry (for a web browser, I put in Javascript code to verify
it there as well as in the web service doing the same validation
because some people disable J
On 22/09/14 17:18, Rob Sargent wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 09:40 AM, John McKown wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Bill Moran
>>> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:32:09 +0200
Marius Grama wrote:
> Can anybody explain me
On 09/22/2014 09:40 AM, John McKown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Bill Moran wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:32:09 +0200
Marius Grama wrote:
Can anybody explain me what happens in the background when the alter
statement is exec
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Bill Moran wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:32:09 +0200
>> Marius Grama wrote:
>>> Can anybody explain me what happens in the background when the alter
>>> statement is executed? I've tried it out on a sma
Anthony,
* Anthony Burden (anthony.d.burden@mail.mil) wrote:
> validate some software with you to
> ensure that all our installed PostgreSQL software meets SHA-256 compliance.
> There is basically two things we are looking for:
>
> 1) Identify all COTS software purchased as part of scheduled
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Bill Moran wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:32:09 +0200
> Marius Grama wrote:
>> Can anybody explain me what happens in the background when the alter
>> statement is executed? I've tried it out on a small copy of the table (70K)
>> and the operation completed in 0.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Anthony Burden wrote:
>> validate some software with you to
>> ensure that all our installed PostgreSQL software meets SHA-256 compliance.
>> There is basically two things we are looking for:
>>
>> 1) Identify all COTS software purchased as pa
On Sep 22, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Paul Jungwirth
wrote:
>>> Can you confirm that your software is SHA-256 Compliant?
>
> Postgres's SSL certificate & key live at the value of ssl_cert_file
> and ssl_key_file in your postgresql.conf. Why not point it at a
> SHA-256 certificate, restart, and try it ou
>> Can you confirm that your software is SHA-256 Compliant?
Postgres's SSL certificate & key live at the value of ssl_cert_file
and ssl_key_file in your postgresql.conf. Why not point it at a
SHA-256 certificate, restart, and try it out?
Paul
--
_
Pulchritudo sp
Anthony Burden wrote:
> validate some software with you to
> ensure that all our installed PostgreSQL software meets SHA-256 compliance.
> There is basically two things we are looking for:
>
> 1) Identify all COTS software purchased as part of scheduled and budgeted
> technology refreshes and upgr
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Adrian,
Correct I have the DOD Memo and this PPT. However I am trying to validate
from the Vendor that PostgreSQL 8.2 is SHA-256 compliant or not. Does that
software utilize SHA-1/SHA-256 algorithm?
V/r,
Anthony
-Original Message-
From: Adria
On 09/22/2014 07:24 AM, Anthony Burden wrote:
validate some software with you to
ensure that all our installed PostgreSQL software meets SHA-256 compliance.
There is basically two things we are looking for:
1) Identify all COTS software purchased as part of scheduled and budgeted
technology refr
validate some software with you to
ensure that all our installed PostgreSQL software meets SHA-256 compliance.
There is basically two things we are looking for:
1) Identify all COTS software purchased as part of scheduled and budgeted
technology refreshes and upgrades must be SHA-256 compliant.
2
On 09/22/2014 01:22 AM, Xiang Gan wrote:
Hi,
I'm newbie here so I'm sorry if this is posted in wrong place.
I tried to install Postgresql 9.2.9 on Linux Friendlyarm. The Postgresql
was cross compiled (use arm-linux-gcc 4.4.3) successfully on my desktop
Ubuntu. Then it was moved to
Linux Frien
Hi,
I'm newbie here so I'm sorry if this is posted in wrong place.
I tried to install Postgresql 9.2.9 on Linux Friendlyarm. The Postgresql
was cross compiled (use arm-linux-gcc 4.4.3) successfully on my desktop Ubuntu.
Then it was moved to
Linux Friendlyarm environment. When I tried to start th
On 14 September 2014 22:01, cowwoc wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose the ability to create temporary schemas.
>
> Unlike temporary tables, this feature would enable developers to create a
> temporary schema once and execute CREATE TABLE statements without the
> TEMPORARY parameter.
>
I think
Evan Martin wrote:
> I'm using PostgreSQL 9.2.8 via Npgsql 2.2.0. When a query times out it
> returns error 57014 with the message "canceling statement due to
> statement timeout". I use the message to detect the timeout and re-try
> in some cases. It seems a bit wrong to rely on the message, thoug
41 matches
Mail list logo
