[GENERAL] all serial type was changed to 1

[Max Wang]

Hi All,

We have a PostgreSQL database. There are 26 tables and we use serial type as 
primary key.  We had a insert error as "duplicate key value violates unique 
constraint, DETAIL:  Key (id)=(1) already exists." one weeks ago. I checked and 
found all tables' id were reset to 1.

I checked database log and did not find any useful information.  I am not sure 
why this happen. The only script which connect to this database is a Python 
script and only do normal insert/update/delete actions.

Please give me some suggestions if you happen to know something about this 
issue. I appreciate any feedback you might have.

I am very new to PostgreSQL and this mail list. Please let me know if I did not 
something wrong.

Thank you.

Regards,
Max

[GENERAL] Logical replication

[Adrian Klaver]

I have started looking at the logical replication feature in Postgres 
10. One thing I have no been able to determine is the interoperability 
between it and pglogical(www.2ndquadrant.com/en/resources/pglogical/). I 
know the one is derived from the other, what I can not find is whether a 
Postgres 9.4 instance with the pglogical extension installed can 
communicate with a Postgres 10 instance using the built in code?


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Can PG replace redis, amqp, s3 in the future?

[Bill Moran]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:37:02 +0200
Thomas Güttler  wrote:

> Is is possible that PostgreSQL will replace these building blocks in the 
> future?
>  
>  - redis (Caching)
>  - rabbitmq (amqp)
>  - s3 (Blob storage)
> 
> One question is "is it possible?", then next "is it feasible?"
> 
> I think it would be great if I could use PG only and if I could
> avoid the other types of servers.
> 
> The benefit is not very obvious on the first sight. I think it will saves you
> time, money and energy only in the long run.
> 
> What do you think?

There's a well-written article I saw recently that directly addresses
your question ... I'm too lazy to find it, but google will probably
turn it up for you.

The upshot is that Postgres does a lot of things well, but when the need
comes up to do them _REALLY_ well, you're generally better off picking a
tool that's specialized for your needs.

Take a message bus for example. PG's notify works pretty damn well as a
centralized message bus. But if you need a distributed message bus or you
need massive throughput, you're almost certainly better of with something
specifically designed for that purpose.

Of course, if you need structured, relational data to be stored reliably,
you can't do much better than Postgres.

-- 
Bill Moran 


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Can PG replace redis, amqp, s3 in the future?

[Steve Atkins]

> On Apr 30, 2017, at 4:37 AM, Thomas Güttler  
> wrote:
> 
> Is is possible that PostgreSQL will replace these building blocks in the 
> future?
> 
> - redis (Caching)
> - rabbitmq (amqp)
> - s3 (Blob storage)

No.

You can use postgresql for caching, but caches don't require the data
durability that a database offers, and can be implemented much more
efficiently.

You can use postgresql to provide message queue services and it
does so reasonably well, particularly when the messages are generated within
the database. But it's not going to do so as efficiently, or be as easy to
monitor, to make highly redundant or to scale across a whole datacenter
as a dedicated message queue service.

You could use postgresql to store binary blobs, but it'd be a horrifically
inefficient way to do it. (Using postgresql to store the metadata, while
the content is stored elsewhere, sure).

Use the right tool for the job.

Cheers,
  Steve

> 
> One question is "is it possible?", then next "is it feasible?"
> 
> I think it would be great if I could use PG only and if I could
> avoid the other types of servers.
> 
> The benefit is not very obvious on the first sight. I think it will saves you
> time, money and energy only in the long run.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Regards,
>  Thomas Güttler
> 
> 
> -- 
> I am looking for feedback for my personal programming guidelines:
> https://github.com/guettli/programming-guidelines
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[GENERAL] Can PG replace redis, amqp, s3 in the future?

[Thomas Güttler]

Is is possible that PostgreSQL will replace these building blocks in the future?
 
 - redis (Caching)
 - rabbitmq (amqp)
 - s3 (Blob storage)

One question is "is it possible?", then next "is it feasible?"

I think it would be great if I could use PG only and if I could
avoid the other types of servers.

The benefit is not very obvious on the first sight. I think it will saves you
time, money and energy only in the long run.

What do you think?

Regards,
  Thomas Güttler


-- 
I am looking for feedback for my personal programming guidelines:
https://github.com/guettli/programming-guidelines


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general