I was just experimenting with debug logging on 8.3 and am finding that
I can't get it to log the table names involved in a given query, it
will always print the table alias used in your join instead, e.g.
explaining a query such as
woome=# explain select * from webapp_person p join auth_user a on
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> frank joerdens writes:
>> I was just experimenting with debug logging on 8.3 and am finding that
>> I can't get it to log the table names involved in a given query, it
>> will always print the table alias used in you
>From my angle, it looks as if the default for PGSTAT_ACTIVITY_SIZE is
too small, or rather that it ought to be configurable at least, so
that longer current_query strings that are shown via
pg_stat_get_backend_activity() in the system view pg_stat_activity
aren't truncated.
The use case is to wat
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
wrote:
[...]
>> Is there a good reason to set PGSTAT_ACTIVITY_SIZE at 256 and is my
>> only option to recompile the server? Is there a practical
>> limit/drawback to making the variable say 4 or 8 times the default?
[...]
> On current releases, it
It seems that whenever I create a new empty table with a foreign key
constraint, the transaction will acquire an exclusive lock on the
referenced table, locking out other writers (not sure if even readers
as well), and I don't quite see why that is necessary if the new
entity does not contain any r
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> frank joerdens writes:
>> It seems that whenever I create a new empty table with a foreign key
>> constraint, the transaction will acquire an exclusive lock on the
>> referenced table, locking out other writers (not sure
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 08:25:49PM +1000, Michael wrote:
> Whats the minimum hardware anyone has installed Postgresql on ?
> Someone is thowing out some old pc's and thought I might make use of
> one.
I tried once to compile some 6.x.x version of Postgresql on a 486SX with
33 Mhz and 8 MB RAM. Th
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 01:48:40PM +0300, Einar Karttunen wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Frank Joerdens wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 08:25:49PM +1000, Michael wrote:
> > > Whats the minimum hardware anyone has installed Postgresql on ?
> > > Someone is thowing out
I am wondering whether anyone has already tried it, or if not, looking
for starting points as to how to go about doing it:
The idea would be to have some kind of tree implementation (e.g.
pointers or nested sets) for an SQL database and then to write a Linux
driver that would make it possible to
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 02:45:37PM +0200, Jan Pruner wrote:
> Hmm, filesystem IS database.
> If you need SQL-like functionality to ask for something in your fs why do
> you want to mount db like fs?
> You can build a sql-like shell !?! EnhancedBASH?
I couldn't possibly explain it any better th
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 01:48:26PM -0700, Marshall Spight wrote:
> "Jan Pruner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 0109251451420D.01444@jpr">news:0109251451420D.01444@jpr...
> > Hmm, filesystem IS database.
> > If you need SQL-like functionality to ask for something in your fs why do
> > you
> > idea whether any other databases do it the same way, but simply removing
> > the limit on physical tuple length wouldn't have been as nice.
Yes, that makes it a lot clearer. This is more or less what I'd been wondering, without
really noticing: Why not just remove the limit on physical tuple
> For a production machine, I typically build and install my entire
> "mission-critical" chain of apps. Postgres, PHP, Apache, etc. This helps
> avoid a few problems: Red Hat may suddenly upgrade to a newly incompatible
> version, or may just change a configuration.
I agree. I'd also compile P
is the difference?
thanks, frank
(i want to use the snapshot cuz i need toast, the best thing since
sliced bread)
--
frank joerdens
joerdens new media
urbanstr. 116
10967 berlin
germany
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t: +49 (0)30 69597650
f: +49 (0)30 7864046
h: http://www.joerdens.de
a bit of a newbie with Linux, so any help will be
> grateful!
>
> Thanks,
> ----
> John Tsombakos
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*>
--
frank joerdens
joerdens new media
urbanstr. 116
10967 berlin
germany
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t: +49 (0)30 6
mark this? How
would you benchmark it? Where do you change this cache size? How do you
keep the cache from being swapped out to disk (which would presumably
all but eradicate the benefits of such a measure)?
Cheers Frank
--
frank joerdens
joerdens new media
urbanstr. 116
10967 ber
I've got an articles table where I want to store texts, of which several translations
exist. Thanks to TOAST I can now store texts of arbitrary length directly in the table,
which is already a big advantage over stuffing them into the file system and trying to
keep the database and file system in
have one table with a 'language' field that
stores the information as to whether this is English, French, etc.; and
then another table for the meta stuff, that also links to the authors
table etc.. So simple. I am a little embarassed.
Frank Joerdens wrote:
>
> I've got an a
I'm just trying to upgrade from 6.4 to 7.1 and did a
pg_dumpall -oz > outfile
or
pg_dump -oz database > outfile
to catch the permissions, and I get a Segmentation fault. Omitting -z works, but that
doesn't cut the mustard cuz I'd have to add all the permission by hand for every single
table (
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> The CVS logs show that a likely-looking patch was applied in Dec 1998,
> so 6.4.2 probably contains the fix. Update to 6.4.2 (maybe even just
> compile and install its pg_dump
Very cool. Just compiling and installing pg_dump from 6.4.2 was indeed sufficient to
fix
the issue
I just noticed that the default order in the PATH to the postgres executable may
introduce
some unnecessary overhead when starting a process:
postmaster: ServerLoop:^I^Ihandling reading 4
postmaster: ServerLoop:^I^Ihandling reading 4
postmaster: ServerLoop:^I^Ihandling writing 4
postmaster: Back
What performance penalty can I expect when going over TCP/IP sockets
instead of Unix sockets? I might have to do that because of some odd
configuration on the server that my app will run on. The application
(Apache/PHP) is on the same physical host as the Postgresql server.
Ta, Frank
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 05:14:50PM +0100, Gilles DAROLD wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With Apache/mod_perl it is very simple to enable DB connection
> persistance.
>
> in your perl script :
>
> use vars qw($dbh);
>
> $dbh ||= DBI::connect($datasrc, $dbuser, $dbpwd);
>
> That create a persistance connectio
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:07:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Frank Joerdens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What performance penalty can I expect when going over TCP/IP sockets
> > instead of Unix sockets?
>
> On a properly designed kernel, there shouldn't
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 01:45:33PM -0600, Clinton James wrote:
> I have some blocks of text than can be from 2K to 80K in size. I understand
> 7.1 will have compression to use with text, but does anyone know of a way I
> can use these large text blocks as a field?
The unlimited row width feature
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 03:49:25PM +0100, Morten W. Petersen wrote:
> Hi people,
>
> I'm wondering if postgres could be capable of acting as a
> mail storage. This would imply storing messages, from
> 1KB to > 100MB in size. The expected volume is 4000
> messages a day, and the database may sto
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 08:07:20PM -0300, Paulo Parola wrote:
[ . . . ]
> >
>
> My question should be: with which user Apache accesses PostgreSQL? From the
> message issued by PostgreSQL it is user 'apache'.
On most systems it seems to be either wwwrun or nobody by default.
>
> Does that mean
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 03:43:55PM -0300, Marcelo Pereira wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>
>
>I'm a new user and I would like to know if I can create my table using
>forein key's.
Sure. Here's an example:
test=> CREATE TABLE statename ( code CHAR(2) PRIMARY KEY,
test(>
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 08:48:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
[ . . . ]
> bytea is probably your best bet. The 8k limit is toast in 7.1, btw.
Is that whay you named it TOAST, in order to be able to say that? :)))
Regards, Frank
---(end of broadcast)-
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 01:41:22PM -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, chris markiewicz wrote:
>
> > okay, i screwed up. i dropped some triggers from a table. now that table
> > is not accessible to me.
> >
> > can't drop it...can't select...can't pg_dump.
> >
> > message is er
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 02:18:23PM -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> > The problem is that the syntax
> >
> > create table SomeTable (
> > SomeColumn int4 references OtherTable ( SomeColumn ),
> > . . .
> >
> > creates an trigger which you can't drop with drop trigger
> > because it doesn
rsion is the large object interface (if at all)
to be considered stable and ready for production?
cheers frank
--
frank joerdens
joerdens new media
heinrich-roller str. 16/17
10405 berlin
germany
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t: +49 30 44055471
f: +49 30 44055475
h: http://www.joerdens.de
ens and how do they do it? Admittedly, 10^9 is a big number
but it is far from out of the question that you'd reach it on a really
busy database (can't think of a real-world example but that ought to be
a moot point), not to mention oids since they are unique across an
entire database
33 matches
Mail list logo
