Re: [ADMIN] I neen help establishing a connection to my PostgreSQL database.
You don't need to - it's enabled by default on Windows, since it has no support for unix sockets. //Magnus From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Maurice MenefeeSent: Monday, January 31, 2005 9:28 PMTo: pgsql-admin@postgresql.orgSubject: [ADMIN] I neen help establishing a connection to my PostgreSQL database. Any help that you could give would be greatly appreciated. I’m running PostgreSQL 8.0 on Windows 2003. When I attempt to connect to the database using Access and ODBC from a Windows 2000 host I get: “Could not connect to remote socket” I believe that this problem is due to the fact that postmaster was not ran with the –i option. How do I run postmaster with the -i option on Windows 2003? Thanks.
[ADMIN] Online Backup and WAL archives
Hi, I'm currently considering to use postgresql 8.0 online backups. The documentation says ' To make use of this backup, you will need to keep around all the WAL segment files generated at or after the starting time of the backup. ' Now I'm wondering how much of these WAL segment files do I really need in order to recover the databases to a consistent state. Let's say I cannot write the WAL segments to tape dynamically when they are archived. Then a complete disk failure would mean, that I loose WAL segments also. Therefore I would like to save a minimum number of WAL segments at or after the online backup that allows recovery. Is that possible? How would I decide how much of the WAL I need? Of course I could recover to the state of database at about the time of the backup only, but it would be a consistent state at least. Or should I use the previous online backup plus all WAL segements up to the current backup? I expect the online backup to faster on recovery than an SQL dump, since the latter would imply recreation of indexes during recovery. Therefore I would prefer to use online backups. Morus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [ADMIN] Online Backup and WAL archives
You may need to recreate some indexes: "Operations on non-B-tree indexes (hash, R-tree, and GiST indexes) are not presently WAL-logged, so replay will not update these index types. The recommended workaround is to manually REINDEX each such index after completing a recovery operation." Best Regards, Bruno Almeida do Lago -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Morus Walter Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:59 AM To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: [ADMIN] Online Backup and WAL archives Hi, I'm currently considering to use postgresql 8.0 online backups. The documentation says ' To make use of this backup, you will need to keep around all the WAL segment files generated at or after the starting time of the backup. ' Now I'm wondering how much of these WAL segment files do I really need in order to recover the databases to a consistent state. Let's say I cannot write the WAL segments to tape dynamically when they are archived. Then a complete disk failure would mean, that I loose WAL segments also. Therefore I would like to save a minimum number of WAL segments at or after the online backup that allows recovery. Is that possible? How would I decide how much of the WAL I need? Of course I could recover to the state of database at about the time of the backup only, but it would be a consistent state at least. Or should I use the previous online backup plus all WAL segements up to the current backup? I expect the online backup to faster on recovery than an SQL dump, since the latter would imply recreation of indexes during recovery. Therefore I would prefer to use online backups. Morus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [ADMIN] Online Backup and WAL archives
Morus Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The documentation says > ' To make use of this backup, you will need to keep around all the > WAL segment files generated at or after the starting time of the backup. ' > Now I'm wondering how much of these WAL segment files do I really need > in order to recover the databases to a consistent state. If you are satisfied with recovering to the state shortly after you completed the backup, then it would be sufficient to have a set of WAL files spanning the time period in which the backup is done. I'm dubious that this is necessarily an improvement over a pg_dump backup, though. > I expect the online backup to faster on recovery than an SQL dump, since > the latter would imply recreation of indexes during recovery. Is that assumption founded on any hard evidence? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [ADMIN] Online Backup and WAL archives
"Morus Walter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto nel messaggio news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi, > > I'm currently considering to use postgresql 8.0 online backups. > > The documentation says > ' To make use of this backup, you will need to keep around all the > WAL segment files generated at or after the starting time of the backup. ' > > Now I'm wondering how much of these WAL segment files do I really need > in order to recover the databases to a consistent state. It depends from the date of your "last" base backup. You must keep around all WAL segments since. The only way to keep WAL sets to a minimum is to base-backup frequently, but how much is the size of your DB ? How many transactions your users produce ? > > Let's say I cannot write the WAL segments to tape dynamically when they > are archived. Then a complete disk failure would mean, that I loose WAL > segments also. The command to archive fully used segments is there just for this. We would use it to (keeping simple) rcp segments on another system. > Therefore I would like to save a minimum number of WAL segments at or > after the online backup that allows recovery. > Is that possible? How would I decide how much of the WAL I need? see answer #1 > > Of course I could recover to the state of database at about the time of the > backup only, but it would be a consistent state at least. > > Or should I use the previous online backup plus all WAL segements up to > the current backup? Last base backup + WAL segments from that point on = Your Database > > I expect the online backup to faster on recovery than an SQL dump, since > the latter would imply recreation of indexes during recovery. > Therefore I would prefer to use online backups. Replaying transactions is surely faster than a complete restore. Regards Claudio Duffini > ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [ADMIN] I neen help establishing a connection to my PostgreSQL database.
By default the postmaster in Windows listens for TCP/IP connections only on the loopback interface. Take a look at your conf files (postgresql.conf and pg_hba.conf). Postgresql.conf probably needs to have a line added something like this: listen_addresses = '*' # what IP interface(s) to listen on; # defaults to localhost, '*' = any I suspect when you try to connect via ODBC it is not using ‘Localhost’ even if it is on the same machine. Cheryl Bender From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Maurice Menefee Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 2:28 PM To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: [ADMIN] I neen help establishing a connection to my PostgreSQL database. Any help that you could give would be greatly appreciated. I’m running PostgreSQL 8.0 on Windows 2003. When I attempt to connect to the database using Access and ODBC from a Windows 2000 host I get: “Could not connect to remote socket” I believe that this problem is due to the fact that postmaster was not ran with the –i option. How do I run postmaster with the -i option on Windows 2003? Thanks.
