Re: [GENERAL] Cannot reach pg server using -h localhost

> This is interesting, I tried nc a few times. Inconsistent results: > > - most of the time the first line doesn't get through, even after a long wait > - on sending a second line from the client both lines appear > instantly, and it's 100% from there on > - or I can send a line from the server. T

Re: [GENERAL] Cannot reach pg server using -h localhost

Logging at debug5, hopefully it will mean more to you than to me. Local connection connects and I quit in a few seconds. -h localhost takes 90+ seconds to be closed by the server. In the longer duration there is a lot more logged, seems like unrelated auto chatter. I turned autovacuum off in postg

[GENERAL] Drop down in connect time between 9.3.6 and 9.3.9 ?

Hello, We've just upgraded some productive servers from 9.3.6 to 9.3.9, and it seems that the time to get a connection (or possibly to disconnect) has become much slower. These tests are consistent when run against different servers. tests with 9.4.1 show fast times, but we don't have a later ve

Re: [GENERAL] Drop down in connect time between 9.3.6 and 9.3.9 ?

Marc Mamin wrote: > We've just upgraded some productive servers from 9.3.6 to 9.3.9, and it seems > that the time to get a > connection (or possibly to disconnect) has become much slower. > These tests are consistent when run against different servers. > > tests with 9.4.1 show fast times, but we

Re: [GENERAL] Cannot reach pg server using -h localhost

SOLVED! With firewall off and pf disabled I spotted a process intended to keep an audit trail of Internet access. I uninstalled it and hey presto. Thanks for your help, everyone! Glad to see my macbook is not haunted. Regards, Fritz On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Chris Mair wrote: > The plot

Re: [GENERAL] Cannot reach pg server using -h localhost

> SOLVED! > Glad to see my macbook is not haunted. Calling a priest would have been my next suggestion... ;) Bye, Chris. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[GENERAL] Delete rule does not prevent truncate

Hi, I very much hope this is an accidental bug rather than a deliberate feature ! PostgreSQL 9.4.4 create rule no_auditupd as on update to app_security.app_audit do instead nothing; create rule no_auditdel as on delete to app_security.app_audit do instead nothing; \d+ app_security.app_audit R

Re: [GENERAL] Delete rule does not prevent truncate

Actually, if you use a TRIGGER instead of rule, you can handle this. The manual states event can be: INSERT UPDATE [ OF column_name [, ... ] ] DELETE*TRUNCATE <-* http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/interactive/sql-createtrigger.html I suggest you review carefully. On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at

Re: [GENERAL] Delete rule does not prevent truncate

Melvin, May I point out that the manual states : "TRUNCATE quickly removes all rows from a set of tables. It has the same effect as an unqualified DELETE on each table" Thus, if you are telling me to effectively think of TRUNCATE as an alias to DELETE, then I would think its not entirely unreason

Re: [GENERAL] Delete rule does not prevent truncate

On 07/22/2015 06:13 AM, Tim Smith wrote: Melvin, May I point out that the manual states : "TRUNCATE quickly removes all rows from a set of tables. It has the same effect as an unqualified DELETE on each table" Thus, if you are telling me to effectively think of TRUNCATE as an alias to DELETE, t

Re: [GENERAL] Delete rule does not prevent truncate

Adrian, It still doesn't make much sense, especially as given the rather obscure and questionable design decision of allowing triggers to refer to truncate ops, but not allowing rules to refer to truncate ops !!! Surely either you say "look, truncate is truncate, its there for one purpose and one

Re: [GENERAL] Delete rule does not prevent truncate

No, I am saying if you CREATE PROCEDURE do_nothing() RETURNS VOID $BODY$ BEGIN RETURN; END LANGUAGE plpgsql; CREATE TRIGGER no_trunc INSTEAD OF TRUNCATE ON your_table EXECUTE PROCEDURE do_nothing; Then you can handle the problem. You should also create a TRIGGER for DELETE to do the same. On

Re: [GENERAL] Delete rule does not prevent truncate

On 07/22/2015 06:24 AM, Tim Smith wrote: Adrian, It still doesn't make much sense, especially as given the rather obscure and questionable design decision of allowing triggers to refer to truncate ops, but not allowing rules to refer to truncate ops !!! Surely either you say "look, truncate is

Re: [GENERAL] Delete rule does not prevent truncate

On 07/22/2015 06:13 AM, Tim Smith wrote: Melvin, May I point out that the manual states : "TRUNCATE quickly removes all rows from a set of tables. It has the same effect as an unqualified DELETE on each table" This is actually wrong. The end result is the same but it does not in any way have

Re: [GENERAL] Delete rule does not prevent truncate

On 07/22/2015 06:24 AM, Tim Smith wrote: Adrian, It still doesn't make much sense, especially as given the rather obscure and questionable design decision of allowing triggers to refer to truncate ops, but not allowing rules to refer to truncate ops !!! Actually it makes perfect sense becaus

Re: [GENERAL] Delete rule does not prevent truncate

On 22 July 2015 at 16:32, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > This is actually wrong. The end result is the same but it does not in any > way have the same effect. ​ "in any way"? ​ ​I'd say in the primary way it has the same effect: all rows are removed from the table. ​ > And I will submit a patch. >

Re: [GENERAL] Delete rule does not prevent truncate

On 07/22/2015 08:42 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: On 22 July 2015 at 16:32, Joshua D. Drake mailto:j...@commandprompt.com>>wrote: This is actually wrong. The end result is the same but it does not in any way have the same effect. ​ "in any way"? ​ ​I'd say in the primary way it has the sam

Re: [GENERAL] Delete rule does not prevent truncate

On 22 July 2015 at 16:55, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 07/22/2015 08:42 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > >> On 22 July 2015 at 16:32, Joshua D. Drake > >wrote: >> >> This is actually wrong. The end result is the same but it does not >> in any way have the same e

[GENERAL] Re: [GENERAL] Way to get timeline

hi! from master: pg_xlogfile_name -- right! from standby: using replication prtotocol (example from version 92) psql -h "$host" -F' ' -c 'IDENTIFY_SYSTEM' 'dbname=replication replication=true' -- misha >Понедельник, 20 июля 2015, 11:13 +03:00 от Vladimir Borodin : > >Hi all. > >What is the best

Re: [GENERAL] [9.5] next question: rls and indexes

On 15 July 2015 at 09:34, Andreas Kretschmer wrote: > test=> explain select * from rls_test ; > QUERY PLAN > - > Seq Scan on rls_test (cost=0.00..630.00 rows=91 width=335) >Filter: (name = ("current_user"())