finitely sooner or later get this Fatal
on recovery .
With this patch we try to get rid of AccessEclusiveLock applied on standby
while we have active statement on it.
--
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-h
On 18.09.2016 06:54, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Alex Ignatov wrote:
On 16.09.2016 16:50, Amit Kapila wrote:
Can you try by setting force_parallel_mode = off;? I think it is
sending the whole function execution to worker due to
force_parallel_mode.
No changes
On 16.09.2016 16:50, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Alex Ignatov wrote:
No it doesn't.
Paralleling neither sql function nor plpgsql:
Here is example :
ipdr=> show max_worker_processes ;
max_worker_processes
--
128
(1 row)
ip
gregate (cost=288697.59..288847.74 rows=15015 width=28)
Group Key: test.a, test.b, test.c, test.d, test.e
-> Seq Scan on test (cost=0.00..163696.15 rows=1115
width=20)
So as we can see parallel secscan doesn't works in plpgsql and sql functions.
Can somebody explains m
Hello!
Does parallel secscan works in plpgsql?
--
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql
suck
performance out particularly for rotating disks.
Rotating disks is not a problem - you can always raid them and etc. 8k
allocation per relation once per half an hour that is the problem. Seq
scan is this way = random scan...
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
amount of WAL
(less indices will need be updated). Of course it will make index scan
a bit worse, however it looks like at least Uber is fine with that
extra cost of index scan.
Does it make sense to implement that kind of index as an access method?
Vladimir
You mean IOT like Oracle have
On 29.06.2016 15:30, David G. Johnston wrote:
More specifically...
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Michael Paquier
mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com>>wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Alex Ignatov
mailto:a.igna...@postgrespro.ru>> wrote:
> Hello!
&
on at every row where its value is needed."
Something wrong with executor? Is it bug or executor feature related
with subquery?
--
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
On 20.06.2016 17:09, Albe Laurenz wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I don't necessarily have an opinion yet. I would like to see more than
just an unsupported assertion about what Oracle's behavior
--
12
(1 row)
On the our side we have some discussions about to write a patch that
will change this incorrect behavior. So stay tuned.
--
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers
On 23.06.2016 19:37, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Alex Ignatov
mailto:a.igna...@postgrespro.ru>>wrote:
On 23.06.2016 16:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:41:26AM +, amul sul wrote:
On Monday, 20 June 2016 8
On 23.06.2016 16:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:41:26AM +, amul sul wrote:
On Monday, 20 June 2016 8:53 PM, Alex Ignatov wrote:
On 13.06.2016 18:52, amul sul wrote:
And it wont stop on some simple whitespace. By using to_timestamp you
can get any output results by
eters values:
postgres=# SELECT TO_TIMESTAMP('2016-06-13 99:99:99', 'YYYYMMDD
HH24:MI:SS');
to_timestamp
2016-01-06 14:40:39+03
(1 row)
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent
providing illegal input parameters we have no
any exceptions or errors about that.
I think that to_timestamp() need to has more format checking than it has
now.
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsq
ase consistency violation.
Can anybody explain this situation with clogs?
--
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www
review as a bug fix.
Regards,
Hi!
Do we have any confidence that data file is not being corrupted? I.e
contains some corrupted page? Can pg_basebackup check page checksum (db
init with initdb -k) while backing up files?
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russ
On 05.05.2016 7:16, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Tom Lane mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila mailto:amit.kapil...@gmail.com>> writes:
> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Alex Ignatov
mailto:a.igna...@postgrespro.ru>>
>
On 06.05.2016 0:42, Greg Stark wrote:
On 5 May 2016 12:32 am, "Tom Lane" mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>
> To repeat, I'm pretty hesitant to change this logic. While this is not
> the first report we've ever heard of loss of pg_control, I believe I
could
> count those reports without r
On 03.05.2016 2:17, Tom Lane wrote:
Alex Ignatov writes:
I think that rename can help a little bit. At least on some FS it is
atomic operation.
Writing a single sector ought to be atomic too. I'm very skeptical that
it'll be an improvement to just move the risk from one
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
On 03.05.2016 2:21, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2016-04-28 21:58:00 +, Alex Ignatov wrote:
We have some issue with truncated pg_control file on Windows after
power failure.My questions is : 1
On 01.05.2016 0:55, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 09:58:00PM +, Alex Ignatov wrote:
Hello everyone!
We have some issue with truncated pg_control file on Windows after power
failure.
My questions is :
1) Is pg_control protected from say , power crash or partial write?
2) How
Hello everyone!
We have some issue with truncated pg_control file on Windows after power
failure.My questions is : 1) Is pg_control protected from say , power crash or
partial write? 2) How PG update pg_control? By writing in it or writing in some
temp file and after that rename it to pg_control
tead of drop support of it
entirely?
--
Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
24 matches
Mail list logo
