Thanks Albe Laurenz, Moshe Jacobson
@Albe - I got you first point. The second point is little skeptical because
postgres could have been avoided this lock by using MVCC. Please correct me if
I am wrong?
@ Jacobson - it could be possible that foreign key violation may arise but
when it arise
Hi,
I am running a PostgreSQL server on FreeBSD. The system has 32GB memory.
Usually I use top to examine the memory usage of the system. After a
while, a part, approximately 5GB, vanish from top, so that the memory
rounds up to 27GB. After restarting PostgreSQL, I have all 32GB again
availa
Ramkumar Yelai wrote:
[is worried that a database might become inconsistent if conflicting
INSERTs and DELETEs occur]
> @Albe - I got you first point. The second point is little skeptical
because postgres could have been
> avoided this lock by using MVCC. Please correct me if I am wrong?
Which l
Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Jürgen Fuchsberger
> wrote:
> > I have a problem with a corrupt backup, fortunately I was only testing so I
> > did not loose any data. Unfortunetely what I did is to follow the backup
> > guidelines in the documentation, which I thought should
On 04/11/12 23:28, Nyamul Hassan wrote:
Upon inspecting the hard drive, we were able to salvage the "data"
folder, but when we try to load it into the PGSQL version of the data
folder (8.2), the server would not load. Upon closer inspection, we
suspect the culprit to be the file 0015 in pg_clo
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 14:28 -0400, Daniel Popowich wrote:
> I'm making this post here in hopes I may save someone from beating
> their head against the wall like I did...
> I am writing a custom Name Service Switch (NSS) module to take
> advantage of already existing account information in a pg dat
ipcs in FreeBSD is a little ... tricky.
ipcs -M
ipcs -m
ipcs -am
could be your friends
On Δευ 05 Νοε 2012 11:22:46 Frank Broniewski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am running a PostgreSQL server on FreeBSD. The system has 32GB memory.
> Usually I use top to examine the memory usage of the system. After a
(scrap my previous internal email (hence fake) address this one is correct :
sorry for that)
You can stop pgsql, start it and then watch out for the increase in SEGSZ
values. I pretty much think they are in bytes.
I am pretty confident that this value depicts the shared_buffers size in bytes.
Hello,
I have the following scenario, I would like to upgrade a database server from
8.3 to 9.1. The upgrade includes also a hardware upgrade.
I would like to have the following
1. Make sure that the upgraded server and the old server have the same snapshot
of data.
2. Make sure that the old
Hi,
thank you for your feedback. I had a look at those commands and their
output, especially in conjunction with the SEGSZ value from icps -am
Here's an example output:
# ipcs -am
Shared Memory:
T ID KEY MODEOWNERGROUPCREATOR
CGROUP NATTCHSE
How do you measure that smth is missing from top? What values do you add?
I am currently running 8.3 but we shouldn't be so far apart top-wise.
What is the reading under SIZE and RES in top for all postgresql processes?
Take note that shared mem should be recorded for each and every postmaster
run
Hi all,
I'm have a problem with heap_form_tuple error
ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 1149502660
I've read through a ton of examples and read through the code and the
docs and I'm sure I'm doing something stupid but I'm not seeing it. I
have included a very reduced sample of the c
Hi,
I just add the different memory values together (minus the buffers).
Usually this sums up (+/-) to the installed memory size, at least on my
other machines. I found a thread similar to my problem here [1], but no
solution. I don't mind top showing false values, but if there's a larger
pro
I'm trying to register at postgresql.org so I can edit the wiki to fix a
broken link. I received a link on my e-mail so I could set my password,
but when I submit the "Change password" form I get an error:
Forbidden (403)
CSRF verification failed. Request aborted.
More information is available
Stephen Woodbridge writes:
> I'm have a problem with heap_form_tuple error
> ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 1149502660
> I've read through a ton of examples and read through the code and the
> docs and I'm sure I'm doing something stupid but I'm not seeing it.
Hm ... you're settin
Since the top reporting goes back to normal when postgresql is stopped ,
and since postgresql is special due to the use of IPC, i would be inclined
to think that the culprit here is the shared memory.
I don't know where maintenance_work_mem really lives (process normal address
space or IPC share
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Daniel Serodio (lists) <
daniel.li...@mandic.com.br> wrote:
> I'm trying to register at postgresql.org so I can edit the wiki to fix a
> broken link. I received a link on my e-mail so I could set my password, but
> when I submit the "Change password" form I get an e
Dear All,
I am having a database course project where I need to make some modification in
postgresql.
For this I need to modify a select query and add some condition to it.
I need to find out the formclause and whereclause of the select query
after it is parsed.To do that,I have found a st
On 11/5/2012 10:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephen Woodbridge writes:
I'm have a problem with heap_form_tuple error
ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 1149502660
I've read through a ton of examples and read through the code and the
docs and I'm sure I'm doing something stupid but I'm no
On Monday, November 05, 2012 05:15:41 AM salah jubeh wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have the following scenario, I would like to upgrade a database server
> from 8.3 to 9.1. The upgrade includes also a hardware upgrade.
>
>
> I would like to have the following
>
> 1. Make sure that the upgraded server a
Hi all,
I am using Postrgesql 9.1
I got a message in my log:
ERROR: deadlock detected
DETAIL: Process 20265 waits for ShareLock on transaction 27774015; blocked
by process 20262.
Process 20262 waits for ShareLock on transaction 27774018; blocked
by process 20265.
Process 20265:
On 05/11/12 18:39, AI Rumman wrote:
Hi all,
I am using Postrgesql 9.1
I got a message in my log:
ERROR: deadlock detected
DETAIL: Process 20265 waits for ShareLock on transaction 27774015;
blocked by process 20262.
Process 20262 waits for ShareLock on transaction 27774018;
blocked b
Stephen Woodbridge writes:
> Thanks, changing my code to use BuildTupleFromCStrings did the trick. So
> if I wanted to do some like my code was doing what is the proper way to
> convert a CString into varchar and then that into Datum?
Personally I'd use cstring_to_text (relying on the knowledge
Richard Huxton writes:
> On 05/11/12 18:39, AI Rumman wrote:
>> ERROR: deadlock detected
>> DETAIL: Process 20265 waits for ShareLock on transaction 27774015;
>> blocked by process 20262.
>> Process 20262 waits for ShareLock on transaction 27774018;
>> blocked by process 20265.
>> Process 2026
Is there any practical difference between defining a column as a
varchar(n)vs. a varchar
vs. a text field?
I've always been under the impression that if I am wanting to index a
varchar column, it is better to set a maximum length. Is this correct?
But more importantly, what's the practical differe
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Moshe Jacobson wrote:
> Is there any practical difference between defining a column as a varchar(n)
> vs. a varchar vs. a text field?
not much. varchar(n) only forces the length to be <= n. I dislike
inventing an 'n' when one is not known, but a lot of people do
On 11/05/12 12:46 PM, Moshe Jacobson wrote:
Is there any practical difference between defining a column as a
varchar(n) vs. a varchar vs. a text field?
varchar(n) has a length constraint on it. the other two don't.
otherwise all three are identical in implementation.
I've always been unde
On 11/05/2012 12:46 PM, Moshe Jacobson wrote:
Is there any practical difference between defining a column as a
varchar(n) vs. a varchar vs. a text field?
No except for your already noted exception that you can limit the size
of varchar.
I've always been under the impression that if I am w
There is no practical difference between "varchar" and "text". "varchar(n)"
is also not really any different than "varchar CHECK length(varchar) <= n" -
meaning that the implementation of the data is the same but validation
occurs during entry.
One thing I have seen is that "varchar" is someti
Hi all,
I read somewhere that the following query gives a quick estimate of the #
of rows in a table regardless of the table's size (which would matter in a
simple SELECT count(*)?):
SELECT (CASE WHEN reltuples > 0 THEN
pg_relation_size('mytable')/(8192*relpages/reltuples)
ELSE 0
END)::bigint AS
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Thalis Kalfigkopoulos
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I read somewhere that the following query gives a quick estimate of the # of
> rows in a table regardless of the table's size (which would matter in a
> simple SELECT count(*)?):
>
> SELECT (CASE WHEN reltuples > 0 THEN
> p
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Thalis Kalfigkopoulos
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I read somewhere that the following query gives a quick estimate of the
> # of
> > rows in a table regardless of the table's size (which would matter in a
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Thalis Kalfigkopoulos
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Thalis Kalfigkopoulos
>> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I read somewhere that the following query gives a quick estimate of the
>> > # of
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Thalis Kalfigkopoulos
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Lonni J Friedman
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Thalis Kalfigkopoulos
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > I
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Thalis Kalfigkopoulos wrote:
>> How is that three levels and not two? Read Uncommitted and Read
>> Commited are the same. And Repeatable Reads don't allow phantom
>> reads thus making them effectively the same as Serializable. No?
No.
> They're only equivalent to the ex
Thalis Kalfigkopoulos writes:
> I read somewhere that the following query gives a quick estimate of the #
> of rows in a table regardless of the table's size (which would matter in a
> simple SELECT count(*)?):
> SELECT (CASE WHEN reltuples > 0 THEN
> pg_relation_size('mytable')/(8192*relpages/re
We upgraded to 9.1 from 8.4 over the summer a few months ago, to new DB
servers with more disk space and memory. Unexpectedly, the DB servers
have steadily increased their disk space usage since. Reported system
load doesn't seem to be affected. It's happening to all our DB servers
running 9.1.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Lists wrote:
> We upgraded to 9.1 from 8.4 over the summer a few months ago, to new DB
> servers with more disk space and memory. Unexpectedly, the DB servers have
> steadily increased their disk space usage since. Reported system load
> doesn't seem to be affected.
I had a 9.0.8 hot standby setup, one master, two slaves, working great.
Then, I tried to re-initialize by making a base backup, the way I've done
it many times before, but for some reason I can't get the standby to accept
connections. I copied the postgresql.conf and recorvery.conf out of the
way,
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Ian Harding wrote:
> I had a 9.0.8 hot standby setup, one master, two slaves, working great.
> Then, I tried to re-initialize by making a base backup, the way I've done it
> many times before, but for some reason I can't get the standby to accept
> connections. I c
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Ian Harding wrote:
> > I had a 9.0.8 hot standby setup, one master, two slaves, working great.
> > Then, I tried to re-initialize by making a base backup, the way I've
> done it
> > many times before, but f
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Ian Harding wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Ian Harding wrote:
>> > I had a 9.0.8 hot standby setup, one master, two slaves, working great.
>> > Then, I tried to re-initialize by making a b
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Ian Harding wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Lonni J Friedman
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Ian Harding
> wrote:
> >> > I had a 9.0.8 hot standby setup, one master,
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Ian Harding wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Ian Harding wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Lonni J Friedman
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Ian
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Ian Harding wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Lonni J Friedman
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Ian Harding
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:46
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Ian Harding wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Ian Harding wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Lonni J Friedman
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:49 PM
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Lists wrote:
> We upgraded to 9.1 from 8.4 over the summer a few months ago, to new DB
> servers with more disk space and memory. Unexpectedly, the DB servers have
> steadily increased their disk space usage since. Reported system load
> doesn't seem to be affected.
Ian Harding wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
It says everything is happy as normal...
2012-11-05 16:22:41.200 PST - :LOG: invalid record length at BA6/6DCBA48
What does this log line mean? Is that "happy as normal"? -- Darren Duncan
--
Sent via pgsql-general
Hi to all.
We have a 9.1.5 production database that never crashed and today we upgraded it
to 9.1.6.
The question: do we need to follow the vacuum/reindex procedure (as specified
here http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/20120924updaterelease ) even if the
database never crashed?
Thank you
Hi
I am using 9.1.6, and I've set up a partitioned table as described in the
manual, with partitions based on a timestamptz column called 'time'. The
exclusion constraints work nicely when I select ranges of times with
literal constants. But why would a WHERE clause like the following not
benefi
Hi,
Does anyone know whether PostgreSQL has complete functional test cases? And
where can I find them?
Currently, I only find some test cases in "PG_SOURCE/src/tests", but it
seems that they are pretty simple and do not cover a lot of features of
PostgreSQL.
Thanks a lot!
Tianyin
--
Tianyin XU
On 11/06/2012 03:00 PM, Denis Gasparin wrote:
>
> Hi to all.
>
> We have a 9.1.5 production database that never crashed and today we
> upgraded it to 9.1.6.
>
> The question: do we need to follow the vacuum/reindex procedure (as
> specified here http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/20120924updaterelease
52 matches
Mail list logo
