solved...
wrong ubuntu-version (unicorn instead of trusty) in /pgdg.list
thanks to all
Urs
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Hello all,
I am playing with the test_decoding extension to be notified on database
changes in a couple of databases replicated with BDR.
What I can see is that new values are present, and also old key when the
modification concerns the primary key. But the other old values do not seem
to be
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Joseph Kregloh jkreg...@sproutloud.com
wrote:
We recently built a new server for our Production database. The machine is
top of the line with 128GB of RAM, dual E5-2650. We also included NVME
drives for ZIL and L2ARC. Currently we have 3 zpools. First one holds
On Thursday, July 2, 2015, Alexander Shereshevsky shereshev...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
I have some simple function. The returned data set is generated based on
view (dynamic - can be changed on daily basis).
So the function was defined this way:
1. returns setof some_view as ...
2.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Vick Khera vi...@khera.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Joseph Kregloh jkreg...@sproutloud.com
wrote:
We recently built a new server for our Production database. The machine
is top of the line with 128GB of RAM, dual E5-2650. We also included NVME
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Joseph Kregloh jkreg...@sproutloud.com
wrote:
With my dataset I have been able to take advantage of the L2ARC. Currently
using about 80GB on ARC and 260GB on L2ARC. With the ARC currently having
the greater Hit ratio.
Did you tell postgres that the
Well, right off the bat, it looks like you do not have indexes on
table84.col7
table57.col7
table19.col7
At least a quick review of the query plan shows they are not being used if
they do exist.
So perhaps that is one of the chief causes for slow performance.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:58 AM,
Thanks, David.
Works perfect.
Best Regards,
Alexander Shereshevsky
+972-52-7460635
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:47 PM, David G. Johnston
david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, July 2, 2015, Alexander Shereshevsky shereshev...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
I have some simple function. The
Hello,
I have some simple function. The returned data set is generated based on
view (dynamic - can be changed on daily basis).
So the function was defined this way:
1. returns setof some_view as ...
2. inside the function I'm generating dynamic SQL into v_sql variable.
3. return query
2015-07-03 7:18 GMT+02:00 Sameer Kumar sameer.ku...@ashnik.com:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:57 PM Lukasz Wrobel
lukasz.wro...@motorolasolutions.com wrote:
Hello again.
Thank you for all your responses. I will try to clarify more and attempt
to answer the questions you raised.
I'm
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:57 PM Lukasz Wrobel
lukasz.wro...@motorolasolutions.com wrote:
Hello again.
Thank you for all your responses. I will try to clarify more and attempt
to answer the questions you raised.
I'm attaching the postgresql.conf this time. I cannot supply you guys with
a
Hi all,
we have a strange performance issue in one of our databases (using PostgreSQL
9.1.18). Maybe you can help me understand what’s going on.
We have two identical tables (rec_isins_current, rec_isins_archive) with the
following structure:
Table ts_frontend.rec_isins_current
Column |
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Vick Khera vi...@khera.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Joseph Kregloh jkreg...@sproutloud.com
wrote:
With my dataset I have been able to take advantage of the L2ARC.
Currently using about 80GB on ARC and 260GB on L2ARC. With the ARC
currently
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 12:58:18 +0200
Lukasz Wrobel lukasz.wro...@motorolasolutions.com wrote:
Hello again.
Thank you for all your responses. I will try to clarify more and attempt to
answer the questions you raised.
I'm attaching the postgresql.conf this time. I cannot supply you guys with
2015-07-02 16:11 GMT+02:00 Sylvain MARECHAL marechal.sylva...@gmail.com:
Hello all,
[...]
What I can see is that new values are present, and also old key when the
modification concerns the primary key. But the other old values do not seem
to be accessible.
Is it a limitation of the
On 01-07-2015 13:53, Condor wrote:
Hello,
I have master - slave replication hot standby. Both server are linux
slackware64 current with postgresql 9.4.4.
Today when I logged to check some things on slave server I see on top
memory taken 26%. That was strange for me and I restart server.
Well,
16 matches
Mail list logo