Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Can someone comment on this?
Looks like a horrible hack to me. Recoding stuff to the client encoding
in the server outside the existing recoding mechanism looks pretty evil
to me.
> Plus, it does not address the problem of what happens to
messa
Hi.
I've found this page about silent install that was very usefull for me:
http://pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/silent.html
Now, I've found another problem. I'm able to install PostgreSQL with my
software in silent mode, but the problem comes when I do un-install. The
problem is related wi
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Can someone comment on this?
Looks like a horrible hack to me. Recoding stuff to the client encoding
in the server outside the existing recoding mechanism looks pretty evil
to me. Plus, it does not address the problem of what happens to
messages sent before this, it ju
Iñigo Barandiaran wrote:
If I do un-install the service account is not removed, so next time I
try to install the software again the service account name (posgres)
exists so It can not be created again, so the installation progress
stops, rolling back.
Do you know how can I remove posgres servi
Thank you all for your answers!.
This solve one of my problems :) THANKS!!!
John, thats a very good question. I've already thought about that, but I've
no idea how to act yet. Becuase, as you said, if there is already a posgre
Database server installed in the target system, and I dont know the
pa
Hi all,
Im trying to create a dbi_link between Oracle and postgresql. i installed
all the necessary perl packages
And I had run dbi_link.sql and it completed without any errors
This is sql that I use to connect
postg...@garuda:~$ less /home/postgres/dbi-link-2.0.0/examples/oracle/dola.sql
/*
*
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Can someone comment on this?
> Looks like a horrible hack to me. Recoding stuff to the client encoding
> in the server outside the existing recoding mechanism looks pretty evil
> to me. Plus, it does not address the problem of what happens to
Hi John.
Thanks for your comment.
You are right. I als think that option *A* is the best, but the problem, as
you mentioned, it is only suitable for knowlegeable, that I might is not
the general case. The "normal" end user only wants to use the software
without knowing anything about data bases
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
>> * psql doesn't do multi-line readline
> I thought it started doing that in 8.2 or 8.3. At least on linux.
It combines all lines into a single statement, which is handy, but things
like this still trip it up:
psql#> CREATE
psql-#> TAB
>
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 10:38:16AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I believe the only real "fix" is to guarantee that messages are sent
> as untranslated ASCII until we have sent an encoding indicator at
> the end of the startup sequence. Which has its own pretty clear
> downside: no more translation of
drop user X casacde...
say x has an access to database Y, you have to revoke it before
dropping the user... takes ages.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 01:43:10 +0100
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
> I need to build up a minimal e-commerce website on a host that is
> already running postgresql.
>
> Requirement is minimal. Usual configurable pretty standard
> couple of paying/shipping system and popular enough to find
> cheap/fr
On Sunday 08 February 2009 10:56:42 am Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 01:43:10 +0100
>
> Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
> > I need to build up a minimal e-commerce website on a host that is
> > already running postgresql.
> >
> > Requirement is minimal. Usual configurable pretty s
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 11:13:26 -0800
Adrian Klaver wrote:
> Have you looked at Satchmo. It runs on the Django framework.
> http://www.satchmoproject.com/
Nice project. Something I certainly would look at to learn
something, but it doesn't fit my current bill.
I also knew http://ofbiz.apache.org/ a
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 01:43:10 +0100
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
I need to build up a minimal e-commerce website on a host that is
already running postgresql.
Requirement is minimal. Usual configurable pretty standard
couple of paying/shipping system and popular eno
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Can someone comment on this?
>
>> Looks like a horrible hack to me. Recoding stuff to the client encoding
>> in the server outside the existing recoding mechanism looks pretty evil
>> to me. Plus, it does not address the p
We've been having persistent out-of-memory errors occur in our production
8.3 deployment, which is now running 8.3.5. I'm not sure the query here is
the cause of the problem, but this is our most-recent example which
triggered an out-of-memory error for us.
Perhaps our configuration needs tweaking
* Matt Magoffin (postgresql@msqr.us) wrote:
> We've been having persistent out-of-memory errors occur in our production
> 8.3 deployment, which is now running 8.3.5. I'm not sure the query here is
> the cause of the problem, but this is our most-recent example which
> triggered an out-of-memory
> erm.. How much memory do you have in the system?
This system has 16GB of RAM, and Postgres is basically the only service
running on the box.
>> shared_buffers = 4000MB
>
> I hope you've got a fair bit more than 4G of memory if you're going to
> use 4G for shared buffers... Once that memory is
* Matt Magoffin (postgresql@msqr.us) wrote:
> Yep, we've got 16GB to work with here. I should have also mentioned the
> architecture in my original post, sorry. SELECT version() returns this:
>
> PostgreSQL 8.3.5 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
> 4.1.2 20070626 (Red Hat
>> PostgreSQL 8.3.5 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
>> 4.1.2 20070626 (Red Hat 4.1.2-14)
>
> Does the result from 'free' look reasonable on this box?
I think so:
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem: 16432296 16273964 1583
* Matt Magoffin (postgresql@msqr.us) wrote:
> > Does the result from 'free' look reasonable on this box?
>
> I think so:
>
> total used free sharedbuffers cached
> Mem: 16432296 16273964 158332 0 173536 14321340
> -/+ buffers/cach
> * Matt Magoffin (postgresql@msqr.us) wrote:
>> Just running top, it does appear to chew through a fair amount of memory.
>> Here's a snapshot from top of the postgres processing running this query
>> from just before it ran out of memory:
>>
>> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %ME
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > Uhh.. I saw that your system was 64-bit, but is your PG process
> > compiled as 64bit? Maybe you're hitting an artificial 32-bit limit,
> > which isn't exactly helped by your shared_buffers being set up so high
> > to begin with?
>> total used free sharedbuffers
>> cached
>> Mem: 16432296 16273964 158332 0 173536
>> 14321340
>> -/+ buffers/cache:1779088 14653208
>> Swap: 20964405602095880
>
> That certainly looks fine.. And you've got 14G or so
> I think it must be compiled 64-bit, or he'd not be able to get
> shared_buffers that high to start with. However, it's possible that the
> postmaster's been started under a ulimit setting that constrains each
> backend to just a few hundred meg of per-process memory.
Here's the output of ulimit
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> I think it must be compiled 64-bit, or he'd not be able to get
>> shared_buffers that high to start with.
> I'm not so sure.. He has it as '4000MB', which would leave 96M free,
> which doesn't seem that far from where his query is
> Hmm ... a gig here, a gig there, pretty soon you're talking about real
> memory? He's got several sorts and hashes that are each taking over
> 100MB according to the memory context dump, so it seems impossible that
> it all fits into a strict 32-bit address space. There's surely no harm
> in do
"Matt Magoffin" writes:
> Here's the output of ulimit -a by the "postgres" user the database is
> running under:
> ...
> I think this means it does not have an artificial memory limit imposed,
Agreed, that ulimit isn't reflecting any such limit, but is that really
the same environment the postmas
* Matt Magoffin (postgresql@msqr.us) wrote:
> > I think it must be compiled 64-bit, or he'd not be able to get
> > shared_buffers that high to start with. However, it's possible that the
> > postmaster's been started under a ulimit setting that constrains each
> > backend to just a few hundred
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Hmm ... a gig here, a gig there, pretty soon you're talking about real
> memory? He's got several sorts and hashes that are each taking over
> 100MB according to the memory context dump, so it seems impossible that
> it all fits into a strict 32-bit address
"Matt Magoffin" writes:
> We've had nagging memory-related issues with 8.3 that manifest themselves
> like memory leaks... some posts I've made in the past have led to some
> leaks getting fixed... but I've not been able to track down more specific
> causes. It's just that over time Postgres seems
> How about cat /proc//limits for the postmaster?
> And maybe:
> status
> stat
> maps
>
> Though I'm kinda grasping at straws here, to be honest. I've had PG up
> and running through >16G of memory at a time before.
There is no /prod//limits file, but here are
status:
Name: postmaster
State:
> Agreed, that ulimit isn't reflecting any such limit, but is that really
> the same environment the postmaster gets started in? I wouldn't trust
> a system startup script to be launched in the same environment that a
> login shell gets. You might try adding
> ulimit -a >/tmp/something
> to
34 matches
Mail list logo
