On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 06:07:08PM -0500, san man wrote:
> Thanks for the replies.
> David, I would have normalized it to 2 or more tables, but the number of
> bar-delimited are not fixed and as new data are added the maximum number of
> these values may change. Also, the problem with like I think
subscribe
Hello,
I am new to Linux and setup 6 Computers with Debian:
1) 2 Workstations
2) 2 Intranet Servers
3) PostgreSQL Server
4) Router
The two Intranet Servers are now working with NFSv4/TCP, Apache2 with suphp and
php5, courier-imap/mta/mlm
My Router is working to and use IPT, bind9 and apache2 w
OK, now I can connect to the PostgreSQL Server but it is weird...
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> and in the pg_hba.conf
> local all postgresident sameuser
> hostsystem root192.168.0.0/24 md5
I can not use "root" as the owner of the database..
On 25/08/2010 3:02 AM, PMC OS wrote:
I am new to Linux
[snip]
Now I like to switch with the authentification to libpam-pgsql/libnss-pgsql2
Honestly, in most cases you'll be much better off managing
authentication with LDAP. It's a better design for the nature of
authentication and user da
Bugger I got another crash on the server today even after setting the
temp_buffers to 512MB. Has anyone got any suggestions to fix this issue?
Should I just compile the source using MS visual studio, then debug and get a
stack trace for someone to diagnose on this list?
Thanks
Jeremy
-Orig
512M is still REALLY high for a 32 bit postgresql. Have you tried
something in the 16Meg range?
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Jeremy Palmer wrote:
> Bugger I got another crash on the server today even after setting the
> temp_buffers to 512MB. Has anyone got any suggestions to fix this issu
Thanks. So can you explain why 512mb is bad decision here given that I only
have 3.7GB of RAM?
The reason why I want the temp_buffers set so high is because this server is
used for large data warehousing type queries. The server has very few sessions
simultaneously running on it, but each sess
Scott Marlowe writes:
> 512M is still REALLY high for a 32 bit postgresql. Have you tried
> something in the 16Meg range?
Cutting his value for shared_buffers (currently about 800MB) might be
wise too. I'm not sure what the effectively available address space
for a win32 process is, but if ther
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe writes:
>> 512M is still REALLY high for a 32 bit postgresql. Have you tried
>> something in the 16Meg range?
>
> Cutting his value for shared_buffers (currently about 800MB) might be
> wise too. I'm not sure what the effectively
Yeah that's what stated here:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189334.aspx
But only if I add /3gb switch to the kernel boot parameters
-Original Message-
From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:scott.marl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 5:28 PM
To: Tom Lane
Cc: Jeremy Pal
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Jeremy Palmer wrote:
> Thanks. So can you explain why 512mb is bad decision here given that I only
> have 3.7GB of RAM?
Because it's per session. Even with just a hand ful of processes
running you can chew up most of your memory real fast. Also, win32
pgsql is
I would be WAY cheaper in time and effort, to just build a simple 64
bit linux box, toss 16 or 32 Gigs in it, and put your reporting db on
there. Trying to do "big memory" things in windows is, at least for
now, a net loss.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Jeremy Palmer wrote:
> Yeah that's wha
I wrote:
> Cutting his value for shared_buffers (currently about 800MB) might be
> wise too. I'm not sure what the effectively available address space
> for a win32 process is, but if there's any inefficiency in the way
> the address space is laid out, those numbers could be enough to be
> trouble
Thanks for the tips. I would move to LINUX if it was an option :(
I will bring the numbers down and do some benchmarking and tests to find out
what I can get away with on this system.
Thanks again,
Jeremy
-Original Message-
From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:scott.marl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wed
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Jeremy Palmer wrote:
> Thanks for the tips. I would move to LINUX if it was an option :(
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. Plus
once you've got a working, performant machine, the boss might turn a
blind eye.
> I will bring the numbe
Good morning,
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Craig Ringer
> Honestly, in most cases you'll be much better off managing
> authentication with LDAP. It's a better design for the nature of
> authentication and user data management, where it has to handle lots
> of
> small read queries an
On 25 Aug 2010, at 7:39, Jeremy Palmer wrote:
> Thanks for the tips. I would move to LINUX if it was an option :(
I'd say if your memory requirements are really as high as you suggest, then
anything that allows you to run a 64-bit version of Postgres is a better option
than 32-bit Windows. Be
18 matches
Mail list logo
