Hello,
The test below is running fine
but if you add the trigger push_foo_tr (uncomment)
then the exception is raised.
It seems that this additional trigger to be called at the first place
changes the deferrable status of the second one.
Is this an expected behaviour ?
regards,
Marc Mamin
I have a Postgres 9.3.7 database, freshly created on Ubuntu 14 LTS 64 bit, and
at this time almost completely empty. I'm attempting to find the size of a
table, using the following code:
SELECT
pg_relation_size (stat.relid),
CASE WHEN cl.reltoastrelid = 0 THEN
0
ELSE
pg_relation_size (
...and I forgot to add: for the rest the database is behaving fine; everything
else works without performance issues, even when we stepped up the amount of
data somewhat. It's just this one query that is somehow very slow.
Hans Guijt
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-ge
> I have a Postgres 9.3.7 database, freshly created on Ubuntu 14 LTS 64 bit,
> and at this time almost completely empty. I'm attempting to find the size of
> a table, using the following code:
>
> SELECT
> pg_relation_size (stat.relid),
> CASE WHEN cl.reltoastrelid = 0 THEN
> 0
> ELSE
>
Are there any plans to introduce the concept of automatic client
routing to the principal server in a cluster of N machines. For
example, if there is a four node replication cluster N1 .. N4, at any
time only one can be principal (the one which does the writing). In
Oracle and DB2, client side libr
recall!
this self containing case works well if I call the correct functions in the
triggers :)
Marc
> -Original Message-
> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-
> ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Marc Mamin
> Sent: Donnerstag, 4. Juni 2015 10:47
> To: pgsql
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> I like that change a lot. It's much easier to seek forgiveness for wasting <=
> 28 GiB of disk than for deleting visibility information wrongly.
I'm glad you like it. I concur.
>> 2. If setting the offset stop limit (the point where we refuse
Hans Guijt writes:
> I have a Postgres 9.3.7 database, freshly created on Ubuntu 14 LTS 64 bit,
> and at this time almost completely empty. I'm attempting to find the size of
> a table, using the following code:
> SELECT
> pg_relation_size (stat.relid),
> CASE WHEN cl.reltoastrelid = 0 THEN
Marc Mamin writes:
> The test below is running fine
> but if you add the trigger push_foo_tr (uncomment)
> then the exception is raised.
Doesn't that trigger result in infinite recursion?
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION push_foo_trf () returns trigger AS $$
> BEGIN
> UPDATE foo SET (id,v) = (N
I'm not sure why you are adding toast to table size, since pg_relation_size
already does that.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/interactive/functions-admin.html
This query might work better and faster for you.
SELECT n.nspname as schema,
c.relname as table,
a.rolname
Correction, pg_relation_size includes toast data.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Melvin Davidson
wrote:
> I'm not sure why you are adding toast to table size, since
> pg_relation_size already does that.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/interactive/functions-admin.html
>
> This query migh
Dammit pg_total_relation_size includes toast data. Thumb problems and to
quick to hit send. :(
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Melvin Davidson
wrote:
> Correction, pg_relation_size includes toast data.
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Melvin Davidson
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why you are
Thanks, this is most helpful. I originally found that query somewhere on the
internet and used it as-is.
If I drop the restriction on table name I get a list that also includes
indexes, constraints, etc. Is there a way to restrict the returned set to
tables only?
Hans Guijt
From: Melvin Da
Sorry, I left out
AND relkind = 'r'
will which restrict to just tables.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Hans Guijt wrote:
> Thanks, this is most helpful. I originally found that query somewhere on
> the internet and used it as-is.
>
>
>
> If I drop the restriction on table name I get a list
On 06/04/2015 07:24 AM, Hans Guijt wrote:
Thanks, this is most helpful. I originally found that query somewhere on
the internet and used it as-is.
If I drop the restriction on table name I get a list that also includes
indexes, constraints, etc. Is there a way to restrict the returned set
to tab
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 4. Juni 2015 15:56
> To: Marc Mamin
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Row visibility issue with consecutive triggers,
> one being DEFERRED
>
> Marc Mamin writes:
> > The test
I'm a relative newbie to Postgres but I've asked a few colleagues about
this problem without a solution, so I'm hoping someone on the list serve
can help.
The problem arose when I move to an upgraded operating system, an upgraded
version of Postgres, and when I dump a database out of the old machi
Seann Reed wrote:
> Everything worked fine with the old setup. With the new setup, I can access
> my
> database through psql command-line. However, I have a compiled program called
> 'Shefdecode' that makes queries to the database through ECPG and this program
> cannot access the database. I
Seann Reed writes:
> I'm a relative newbie to Postgres but I've asked a few colleagues about
> this problem without a solution, so I'm hoping someone on the list serve
> can help.
> The problem arose when I move to an upgraded operating system, an upgraded
> version of Postgres, and when I dump a
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Thanks for the review.
Here's a new version. I've fixed the things Alvaro and Noah noted,
and some compiler warnings about set but unused variables.
I also tested it, and it doesn't quite work as hoped. If started on a
cluster where oldestMu
I have a situation where I need to replicate the databases in 4 clusters on 4
individual servers to a single cluster on 1 server. So far, the best option
looks like pgpool statement-based replication, the major down side being
sequences. Does anyone know a better way to achieve this type of repl
Hi,
On 2015-06-04 12:57:42 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> + /*
> + * Do we need an emergency autovacuum? If we're not sure, assume yes.
> + */
> + return !oldestOffsetKnown ||
> + (nextOffset - oldestOffset > MULTIXACT_MEMBER_SAFE_THRESHOLD);
I think without teaching a
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-06-04 12:57:42 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * Do we need an emergency autovacuum? If we're not sure, assume yes.
>> + */
>> + return !oldestOffsetKnown ||
>> + (nextOffset - oldestOffset > MULTI
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > So here's a patch taking a different approach.
>
> I tried to apply this to 9.3 but it's messy because of pgindent. Anyone
> would have a problem with me backpatching a pgindent run of multixact.c?
Done.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://
Take a good look at http://2ndquadrant.com/en/resources/bdr/
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Doiron, Daniel wrote:
> I have a situation where I need to replicate the databases in 4 clusters
> on 4 individual servers to a single cluster on 1 server. So far, the best
> option looks like pgpool st
On 6/4/2015 10:07 AM, Doiron, Daniel wrote:
I have a situation where I need to replicate the databases in 4
clusters on 4 individual servers to a single cluster on 1 server. So
far, the best option looks like pgpool statement-based replication,
the major down side being sequences. Does anyone k
The four source/master servers all have different databases, lets call them A,
B, C, and D. We'd like to replicate them to one cluster that will hold ABCD
databases.
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of John
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Thanks for the review.
>
> Here's a new version. I've fixed the things Alvaro and Noah noted,
> and some compiler warnings about set but unused variables.
>
> I also tested it, and it does
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> - Forces aggressive autovacuuming when the control file's
> oldestMultiXid doesn't point to a valid MultiXact and enables member
> wraparound at the next checkpoint following the correction of that
> problem.
Err, enables member wraparound *pro
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Here's a new version with some more fixes and improvements:
>
> - SetOffsetVacuumLimit was failing to set MultiXactState->oldestOffset
> when the oldest offset became known if the now-known value happened to
> be zero. Fixed.
>
> - SetOffsetVac
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Here's a new version with some more fixes and improvements:
>>
>> - SetOffsetVacuumLimit was failing to set MultiXactState->oldestOffset
>> when the oldest offset became known if the now-k
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 08:53:15 -0400
Ravi Krishna wrote:
> Are there any plans to introduce the concept of automatic client
> routing to the principal server in a cluster of N machines. For
> example, if there is a four node replication cluster N1 .. N4, at any
> time only one can be principal (the
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Doiron, Daniel wrote:
> The four source/master servers all have different databases, lets call them
> A, B, C, and D. We'd like to replicate them to one cluster that will hold
> ABCD databases.
You can use londiste [1] or slony [2] to do that.
[1] http://skytoo
Hello Adrian,
Sorry for the late response. I've not used Django so I can't provide
specific guidance on how you would implement it with that but in SQLAlchemy
that model is called "joined-table-inheritance":
http://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/latest/orm/inheritance.html#joined-table-inheritance
That i
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 05:29:51PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Here's a new version with some more fixes and improvements:
I read through this version and found nothing to change. I encourage other
hackers to study the patch, though. The surrounding code is challenging.
> With this version, I'm
35 matches
Mail list logo
