> On Oct 10, 2017, at 23:54, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> The use case described seems incredibly
> unreal and certainly amenable to being rewritten.
While it's certainly true that this was an extreme case, it was a real-life
production situation. The concern here is that in the actual production
When increasing the length constraint on a varchar column, Postgres is smart
enough to not rewrite the table.
I expected the same thing to be true when increasing the size of a numeric
column.
However this does not seem to be the case:
Consider the following table:
create table foo
On 11 October 2017 at 08:09, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>
>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 23:54, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> The use case described seems incredibly
>> unreal and certainly amenable to being rewritten.
>
> While it's certainly true that this was an extreme case, it was a real-life
> production
hi,
I've had an `INSERT INTO x SELECT FROM [...]` query running for more
then 2 days.
Is there a way to see how big x has gotten? Even a very rough estimate
(off by a gigabyte) would be fine.
Best,
Seamus
--
Seamus Abshere, SCEA
https://www.faraday.io
https://github.com/seamusabshere
https://l
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:43:26AM -0300, Seamus Abshere wrote:
> I've had an `INSERT INTO x SELECT FROM [...]` query running for more
> then 2 days.
>
> Is there a way to see how big x has gotten? Even a very rough estimate
> (off by a gigabyte) would be fine.
On linux:
Run ps -fu postgres (or
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Seamus Abshere wrote:
> hi,
>
> I've had an `INSERT INTO x SELECT FROM [...]` query running for more
> then 2 days.
>
> Is there a way to see how big x has gotten? Even a very rough estimate
> (off by a gigabyte) would be fine.
>
> Best,
> Seamus
>
>
> --
> Seamus
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 11 October 2017 at 08:09, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>> While it's certainly true that this was an extreme case, it was a real-life
>> production situation. The concern here is that in the actual production
>> situation, the only symptom was that the startup process just
Thomas Kellerer writes:
> I don't understand why going from numeric(12,2) to numeric(15,3) would
> require a table rewrite.
The comment for numeric_transform explains this:
* Flatten calls to numeric's length coercion function that solely represent
* increases in allowable precision. Scale
Hi
I'm testing out logical replication on PostgreSQL 10. Is there a setting to
make subscribers read-only slaves like with Slony. Currently I can insert
into the Publisher and the Subscriber. If there is a conflict, i.e. same
record exists in both, then all replication gets backed up (even to other
On 10/11/2017 11:18 AM, rverghese wrote:
Hi
I'm testing out logical replication on PostgreSQL 10. Is there a setting to
make subscribers read-only slaves like with Slony. Currently I can insert
into the Publisher and the Subscriber. If there is a conflict, i.e. same
record exists in both, then al
You mean at the user permissions level? Yes, I could, but would mean doing so
table by table, which is not our current structure. I guess there is nothing
at the database level.
--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-general-f1843780.html
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing
> Yeah. The ORDER BY creates a partial optimization fence, preventing
> any such plan from being considered.
>>
I can see in the general case it semanticly means different things If you allow
the WHERE to pass through ORDER BY.
A special case can be allowed for WHERE to pass the ORDER BY if
On 12 October 2017 at 08:37, Kim Rose Carlsen wrote:
>
>> Yeah. The ORDER BY creates a partial optimization fence, preventing
>> any such plan from being considered.
>>>
>
> I can see in the general case it semanticly means different things If you
> allow the WHERE to pass through ORDER BY.
>
>
> On 11 Oct 2017, at 21.46, David Rowley wrote:
>
>> On 12 October 2017 at 08:37, Kim Rose Carlsen wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah. The ORDER BY creates a partial optimization fence, preventing
>>> any such plan from being considered.
>>
>> I can see in the general case it semanticly means differen
On 12 October 2017 at 10:15, Kim Rose Carlsen wrote:
> Why don't I see that predicate (customer_id) pushed into the outer nested
> loop so we don't have to sort the whole table on each loop.
>
> (See original post and follow up for definitions)
>
On 4 October 2017 at 00:21, milist ujang wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
>>
>> Can you get stacks please?
>>
>> Use -g
>
>
> # Events: 2K cpu-clock
> #
> # Overhead Command Shared ObjectSymbol
> # .
On 2017-10-12 10:25:43 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 4 October 2017 at 00:21, milist ujang wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Can you get stacks please?
> >>
> >> Use -g
> >
> >
> > # Events: 2K cpu-clock
> > #
> > # Overhead Command Shared Obje
On 12 October 2017 at 11:03, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-10-12 10:25:43 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 4 October 2017 at 00:21, milist ujang wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Can you get stacks please?
>> >>
>> >> Use -g
>> >
>> >
>> > # Event
18 matches
Mail list logo
