Hi,
I am using the npgsql postgres data adaptor in a C# ASP.NET application.
Each time the site establishes a new connection to the database a
postgres.exe process is started. For some reason this process is not
removed when the connection is closed.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Kim Robinson wrote:
Hi,
I am using the npgsql postgres data adaptor in a C# ASP.NET application.
Each time the site establishes a new connection to the database a
postgres.exe process is started. For some reason this process is not
removed when the connection is closed.
Any help
On 2008-08-14 20:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to ask you about some experience in managing huge databases which
store mostly binary files.
Do you mean BYTEA or large objects? Both have pros and cons.
We're developing a system which is likely to grow up to terabytes in
some years
Hello all,
a few days ago I bumped into this:
-
# vacuumdb -f -z -a
vacuumdb: vacuuming database postgres
VACUUM
vacuumdb: vacuuming database rtdata
vacuumdb: vacuuming of database rtdata failed: ERROR: failed to
re-find parent key in
-Original Message-
From: Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you throw enough drives on a quality RAID controller at it you can
get very good throughput. If you're looking at read only / read
mostly, then RAID5 or 6 might be a better choice than RAID-10. But
RAID 10 is my default choice
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Of course the larger issue is why it's failing --- 150MB doesn't seem
like that much for a modern machine. I suspect that PQerrorMessage()
would tell us something useful, but pg_restore isn't letting us see it.
I've applied a patch for
Hello,
Is there a table/view available from where I can check what time the cluster
was started?
Need this to calculate the uptime of the cluster.
Or is there something else that I need to do in order to calculate this?
Any help on this is appreciated.
Cheers!
Alexi
Send instant messages to
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 9:35 PM, William Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Is there an easy way to write one single query that can alternate between
ASC and DESC orders? Ex:
Take a look at this link
http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-general@postgresql.org/msg111788.html
--
Regards,
Sergey
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:09 AM, Joao Ferreira gmail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What risks are we facing if we choose not to update postgresql ?
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG)
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 16:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Reid Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would plpgsql.so get built with..
./configure --prefix=/usr/local/pgsql833 --without-readline --disable-shared
Uh,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:53:32AM -0700, Alexi Gen wrote:
Is there a table/view available from where I can check what time the cluster
was started?
Need this to calculate the uptime of the cluster.
In PostgreSQL 8.1 and later you can run these queries to get the start
time and uptime:
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you throw enough drives on a quality RAID controller at it you can
get very good throughput. If you're looking at read only / read
mostly, then RAID5 or 6 might be a better choice than RAID-10. But
RAID
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 4:09 AM, Joao Ferreira gmail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What risks are we facing if we choose not to update postgresql ?
A _lot_ more risk than updating.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
=?us-ascii?Q?Tom=20Tom?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Attached is a pg_restore.exe off CVS tip today, which should include the
patch. Please try this one.
I tested the restore using the provided pg_restore.exe. The output is:
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute
On 8/18/08, Magnus Hagander
Hi, all!
As Magnus said, this is caused by the fact Npgsql does connection pool
by default.
You can change that by passing pooling=false in your connection string.
You can get more info at
manual.npgsql.org
I hope it helps
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kim Robinson
All,
From a performance standpoint what is the downside to using a UUID column?
Our current database with 25 locations after 5 years is only about 2.5 gig.
We do about 200,000 orders per year so we are not getting hit with a huge
amount
of data. Much of our data is static or once
I've something like
create table p (
pid int primary key
-- other stuff
);
create table s1 (
s1id int primary key,
pid int references p (pid) on delete cascade
-- other stuff
);
begin;
set constraints all deferred;
delete from p;
-- insert into p (pid) select * atable;
-- insert into
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure what's really happening but why apparently the delete
statements get executed before the 2 inserts even if constraints are
deferred?
You didn't mark the FK constraints as deferrable --- I'm pretty sure
the default is NOT DEFERRABLE.
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:16:01 -0400
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure what's really happening but why apparently the
delete statements get executed before the 2 inserts even if
constraints are deferred?
You didn't mark the FK
this:
begin;
explain select * from catalog_items limit 5;
commit;
return this:
-- Executing query:
begin;
explain select * from catalog_items limit 5;
commit;
Query result with 2 rows discarded.
Query returned successfully with no result in 58 ms.
I'm interested in explain inside a
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this:
begin;
explain select * from catalog_items limit 5;
commit;
return this:
-- Executing query:
begin;
explain select * from catalog_items limit 5;
commit;
Query result with 2 rows discarded.
Query
http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-general@postgresql.org/msg111788.htmlprobably
won't match an index, because ASC or DESC ordering depends NOT on
the table's data, but on the function parameter.
Unfortunately the planner does not recognize the following case:
CREATE TABLE public.prime (
num
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 11:01 -0400, justin wrote:
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you're looking at read only / read
mostly, then RAID5 or 6 might be a better choice than RAID-10. But
RAID 10 is my default choice unless
Great thanks all.
Can you give me any indication of the performance implications of
setting pooling=false?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francisco
Figueiredo Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2008 3:48 AM
To: Magnus Hagander
Cc: Kim Robinson;
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Kim Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great thanks all.
Can you give me any indication of the performance implications of
setting pooling=false?
Yeap. All the time you would need to connect to postgresql you will
have the overhead of tcp connection
I have a db (tables with up to 5,000,000 records, up to 70 columns x 1,500,000
records, around 50Gb of disk space for the database (incl data, indexes, etc)
Most records have PostGIS geometry columns, which work very well.
For read performance this is on a (2 yr old) Linux box with 2x software
26 matches
Mail list logo
