>> I have set work_mem to a very low value intentionally for demonstration
>> purposes:
>>
>> postgres=# show work_mem;
>> work_mem
>> --
>> 16MB
>> (1 row)
>>
>> postgres=# show shared_buffers ;
>> shared_buffers
>>
>> 128MB
>> (1 row)
>>
>>
>> When I run t
Hi,
2017-04-05 1:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver :
> On 04/04/2017 07:45 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:
>
> Postgres version?
>
9.6.1
>
> Hi,
>> I had two replication slots on my primary. Slaves off and (around 800)
>> WALs kept as expected.
>>
>
> Slaves off means?:
>
> You replication set up from the mas
On 4/4/17 23:28, lin wrote:
> all. I use "AEXPR_OR", "AEXPR_AND" in postgres 9.3 ,now I update the
> postgres version to 9.6, but the 9.6 version has not the "AEXPR_OR",
> "AEXPR_AND".
> How can I solve the problem ?
See commit 2146f13408cdb85c738364fe8f7965209e08c6be about how the
internal rep
Bruno Wolff III writes:
> ... I create both a normal gist index and an exclude index using the
> following:
> CREATE INDEX contains ON iplocation USING gist (network inet_ops);
> ALTER TABLE iplocation
> ADD CONSTRAINT overlap EXCLUDE USING gist (network inet_ops WITH &&);
> But I am wonderin
Hi,
all. I use "AEXPR_OR", "AEXPR_AND" in postgres 9.3 ,now I update the
postgres version to 9.6, but the 9.6 version has not the "AEXPR_OR",
"AEXPR_AND".
How can I solve the problem ?
Thanks,
wln
I am trying to load a database with about 3.5 million records relating
netblocks to locations. I currently don't know whether or not any of the
netblocks overlap. If they don't, then I can simplify queries that
find the locations of IP addresses.
I create the table as follows:
DROP TABLE IF EX
On 04/04/2017 07:45 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:
Postgres version?
Hi,
I had two replication slots on my primary. Slaves off and (around 800)
WALs kept as expected.
Slaves off means?:
You replication set up from the master to the slaves(how many?).
Then you disconnected the slaves how?
So the 80
Thanks David
Worked like a charm and results are correct
Armand
On Apr 4, 2017, at 5:00 PM, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Armand Pirvu (home)
> wrote:
>
> But if I join back to foo1 like below I get
>
> select a.audit_id, a.table_name, b[1],b[2]
> from
> fo
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> The first attached is the revised patch and the second is
> temporary sanity check code for non-128bit environment code. (but
> works only on 128 bit environment)
This seemed to me to be probably even less correct, so I extracted
the addition and multiplication logic i
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Armand Pirvu (home)
wrote:
>
> But if I join back to foo1 like below I get
>
> select a.audit_id, a.table_name, b[1],b[2]
> from
> foo1 a,
> (select
> array(
> select
> column_name::text from
> information_schema.columns
> where
> table_name=a.table_name
> and
> (
Hi
Can somebody please tell me if the below is possible ?
I may not see the forest from the trees
Thanks
Armand
levregdb=# select * from foo1;
audit_id | table_name
--+
6012 | foo2
6013 | foo2
6014 | foo2
select * from foo2;
levregdb=# select * from
Thank you Jeff
Nice . I also looked at akeys/skeys
My goal is to get the key by pattern matching and then passing it back like in
col1->key
Armand
On Apr 4, 2017, at 12:42 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Armand Pirvu (home)
> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have the follo
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Armand Pirvu (home)
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have the following case
>
>
> select * from foo;
> col1
>
> -
> "show_id"=>"1", "group_id"=>"32", "group_na
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Tom DalPozzo wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a very big table (10GB).
> I noticed that many WAL segments are being written when elaborating read
> only transactions like this:
> select * from dati256 where id >4300 limit 100;
> I don't understand why are there
On 04/04/17 16:46, Tom DalPozzo wrote:
Hi,
I have a very big table (10GB).
I noticed that many WAL segments are being written when elaborating read
only transactions like this:
select * from dati256 where id >4300 limit 100;
I don't understand why are there WAL writings during rea
Thank you
— Armand
On Apr 4, 2017, at 10:50 AM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Armand Pirvu (home)
> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have the following case
>
>
> select * from foo;
> col1
>
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Armand Pirvu (home) wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have the following case
>
>
> select * from foo;
> col1
>
> -
> "show_id"=>"1", "group_id"=>"32", "group_n
Hi,
I have a very big table (10GB).
I noticed that many WAL segments are being written when elaborating read
only transactions like this:
select * from dati256 where id >4300 limit 100;
I don't understand why are there WAL writings during read only transactions.
Regards
Pupillo
Hi
I have the following case
select * from foo;
col1
-
"show_id"=>"1", "group_id"=>"32", "group_name"=>"slb", "group_add_by"=>"557651"
"
Sorry for the delay
This is the one I used
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Audit_trigger
And the cfg_global_audit
Column | Type | Modifiers
--+--+
audit_id | bigint
Hi,
I had two replication slots on my primary. Slaves off and (around 800) WALs
kept as expected.
I dropped those slots but over time, the system kept on adding new WALs
without reusing them or deleting them.
Only after shutdown and restart the system deleted those WAL files.
Is that ok?
regards
Pu
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Daniel Westermann
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PostgreSQL 9.6.2 on CentOS 7.3 x64.
>
> This is my data set:
>
> drop table if exists users;
> drop table if exists ids;
> create table users ( user_id int
>, username varchar(50)
>);
> with
Greetings,
* Robin St.Clair (ro...@robinstclair.net) wrote:
> Please do not encrypt what does not need to be encrypted. Signing
> communications to a mailing list probably isn't required?
Signing communications demonstrates that the message was, indeed, from
me. You are certainly welcome to ig
Greetings Vinny,
* vinny (vi...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
> I meant it as "in an ideal world". It's a bit like buying a car
> and finding out that they have not put the wheels on. It's not
> difficult to put them on yourself,
> but you kind of expect that the people who want you to user their
> car would
On 2017-04-04 15:04, Stephen Frost wrote:
Greetings,
* vinny (vi...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
And yes, I can probably setup my email to do something like that,
the point is that I shouldn't have to.
I'm all for improving things and adding automation where it'll help,
but
the infrastructure is basi
Hi,
PostgreSQL 9.6.2 on CentOS 7.3 x64.
This is my data set:
drop table if exists users;
drop table if exists ids;
create table users ( user_id int
, username varchar(50)
);
with generator as
( select a.*
from generate_series (1,300) a
order by random()
)
insert into users ( use
Greetings,
* vinny (vi...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
> The thing is; mailinglists are far from userfiendly if you are not
> used to them.
> Even in this thread several people have explained how much work they
> have done to get it
> into a state where they can easily work with it. Can you expect Joe
> Aver
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> The previous expression intended to avoid decimal arithmetic, but
> gcc optimizes the simple division better (using cmovns-add-sar)
> than the current INT64_AU32 (jmp-sar) so I changed it. This
> doesn't
vinny schrieb am 04.04.2017 um 12:01:
> I'd love to have an RSS feed that contains only new questions, so I can just
> watch the popup
> on my screen the way I do with the rest of the world, and not have to deal
> with replies to topics that I don't care about anyway.
You can read them as a news
On 2017-03-27 23:23, Steve Litt wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:31:02 +0900
Michael Paquier wrote:
If you have subscribed to more mailing lists than -general, having one
subfolder per list can also help a lot, grouping as well some of those
having a low activity, for example:
- one folder for -h
On 2017-04-04 09:12, Tim Uckun wrote:
I agree with the barking up the wrong tree, building a physical tree
in tables doesn't sound right
given that you will have to create a new branch in the tree when a new
version/variation of ubuntu comes out.
This doesn't bother me that much.
It should. Y
Thank you for the comment.
At Mon, 03 Apr 2017 11:35:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
<23053.1491233...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> > Ok, the attached patch changes the result type of
> > interval_cmp_value from TimeOffset(=int64) to new 128 bit
> > LinearInterval. The value is hidd
>I agree with the barking up the wrong tree, building a physical tree in
tables doesn't sound right
given that you will have to create a new branch in the tree when a new
version/variation of ubuntu comes out.
This doesn't bother me that much. If can say create table ubuntu_17_04
inherits ubuntu a
33 matches
Mail list logo
