Hi All,
We are using pgpool 3.6.1 with two nodes in the cluster. We are seeing
frequent occurrences where one node will be marked as offline.
When this occurs we are seeing the following statements in our logs.
2017-02-09 09:45:38: pid 12125: WARNING: write on backend 0 failed with
error
Hi All,
I want to use pgsync method for LDAP configuration in current environment.
So please help me and share the document or link for configuration.
-Pawan
Hello,
I use Postgres + PostGIS quite heavily, and recently have been taking full
advantage of the new parallelism in 9.6. I'm now running queries in a few
hours that used to take more than a day.
However, parallelism is disabled for all queries that perform writes (as
documented). I would
## Thomas Güttler (guettl...@thomas-guettler.de):
> Is running linux with postgres on eMMC a bad idea in general?
I'd say that running anything with a read-write load on eMMC will
end in pieces. It's ok to occasionally write something, but a mixed
load is not really what these things were
On 2/9/2017 9:00 PM, Patrick B wrote:
Access share = Does that mean queries were waiting because an
update/delete/insert was happening?
access share is taken by a SELECT, and all it blocks is an ACCESS
EXCLUSIVE lock, which is taken by operations like ALTER TABLE, VACUUM
FULL, and such
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:41:15 +1100
> Venkata B Nagothi wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Benoit Lobréau >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > I
On 02/09/2017 09:00 PM, Patrick B wrote:
Hi guys
I just wanna understand the locks in a DB server:
Imagem inline 1
Access share = Does that mean queries were waiting because an
update/delete/insert was happening?
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/explicit-locking.html
I'm asking
2017-02-10 18:18 GMT+13:00 John R Pierce :
> On 2/9/2017 9:16 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>
>> that spike in your graph suggests you had 8000 concurrent SELECT
>> operations...
>>
>
> errr, 7000, still way too many.
>
Thanks a lot John!! Got it
PAtrick
Hi guys
I just wanna understand the locks in a DB server:
[image: Imagem inline 1]
Access share = Does that mean queries were waiting because an
update/delete/insert was happening?
I'm asking because I got a very big spike with > 30 seconds web response
time.
Running PG 9.3
Thanks!
Patrick
On 2/9/2017 9:16 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
that spike in your graph suggests you had 8000 concurrent SELECT
operations...
errr, 7000, still way too many.
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
Hi,
I have a postgres-9.6 server running with SSL enabled, and I have setup the
certificates as per documentation. But currently the key file is not
protected by passphrase. Does postgres provide a way to use passphrase
protected keys ?
Thanks
Dhanuj
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:41:15 +1100
Venkata B Nagothi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Benoit Lobréau
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I would like to clarify something about standby promotion. From the
> > sentence below. I understand that,
dhanuj hippie wrote:
I have a postgres-9.6 server running with SSL enabled, and I have setup the
certificates as per
documentation. But currently the key file is not protected by passphrase. Does
postgres provide a
way to use passphrase protected keys ?
If by "per documentation" you refer
Bill Moran writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bill Moran wrote:
>>> What I feel is the best way to mitigate the situation, is to have some
>>> setting that limits the maximum RAM any backend can consume.
>> I've had some success using ulimit in the past,
>Sure, but when you are doing a switchover, the standby is supposed to be
>connected to the master when you shutdown the master. So based on the doc,
>the standby should receive **everything** from the master before the master
>actually shutdown.
We use 9.5 and even in that version there is no
15 matches
Mail list logo