On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Achilleas Mantzios
wrote:
> Στις Friday 08 April 2011 08:55:51 ο/η Ireneusz Pluta έγραψε:
>> Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
>> >
>> > In anyway, having FreeBSD to fsck, (background or not) should not happen.
>> > And the problem
>> > becomes bigger when cheap SATA driv
Στις Friday 08 April 2011 08:55:51 ο/η Ireneusz Pluta έγραψε:
> Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
> >
> > In anyway, having FreeBSD to fsck, (background or not) should not happen.
> > And the problem
> > becomes bigger when cheap SATA drives will cheat about their write cache
> > being flushed to the dis
Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
In anyway, having FreeBSD to fsck, (background or not) should not happen. And
the problem
becomes bigger when cheap SATA drives will cheat about their write cache being
flushed to the disk.
So in the common case with cheap hardware, it is wise to have a UPS connected
On 4/6/11 10:48 PM, "Greg Smith" wrote:
>Since they're bragging about it there, the safe bet is that the older R2
>unit had no such facility.
>
>I note that the Z-Drive R2 is basically some flash packed on top of an
>LSI 1068e controller, mapped as a RAID0 volume.
In Linux, you can expose it as
On 04/06/2011 06:33 PM, Ireneusz Pluta wrote:
I saw some recommendations from people on the net not to use
background fsck when running PostgreSQL on FreeBSD. As I recall, these
opinions were just thoughts of people which they shared with the
community, following their bad experience caused by
Στις Thursday 07 April 2011 16:31:50 ο/η Ivan Voras έγραψε:
> On 07/04/2011 00:48, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Ireneusz Pluta wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I saw some recommendations from people on the net not to use background
> >> fsck
> >> when running PostgreSQL on
On 07/04/2011 00:48, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Ireneusz Pluta wrote:
Hello,
I saw some recommendations from people on the net not to use background fsck
when running PostgreSQL on FreeBSD. As I recall, these opinions were just
thoughts of people which they shared wit
On 7 April 2011 08:10, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 7 April 2011 07:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thom Brown writes:
>>> On 6 April 2011 05:44, Tom Lane wrote:
It looks like the index predicate expression isn't getting the right
collation assigned, so predtest.c decides the query doesn't imply the
yep - we use analyze and check the output. It's version 8.4.5 so no fsm
issues.
thanks, Maria
On 4/6/11 11:33 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
"Maria L. Wilson" wrote:
Autovacuum is not running - but regular vacuums are being done
twice daily.
Is the ANALYZE keyword used on those VACUUM runs?
On 7 April 2011 07:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> On 6 April 2011 05:44, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It looks like the index predicate expression isn't getting the right
>>> collation assigned, so predtest.c decides the query doesn't imply the
>>> index's predicate. Too tired to look into
10 matches
Mail list logo
