* Scott Whitney ([email protected]) wrote:
> 1)Add to pg_hba.conf on master:
> host replication postgres my IP/32 trust
Never use 'trust'. At least use 'md5', all that requires is putting a
password into your replication config.
> 2) Configure in postgresql.conf on master:
> wal_level = hot_
Gabriele --
- Original Message -
> From: Gabriele Bartolini
> To: Greg Williamson
> Cc: [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 4:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Database size stays constant but disk space keeps
> shrinking -- postgres 9.1
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Tue,
Hi all,
Looks like I found the reason. There is a huge query on the slave that
has been running for 5 hours. It's doing major sorting and has claimed
29 gigs in the base/pgsql_tmp/ directory, which is the excact
discrepancy between the master and the slave.
So makes sense, I'm good,
- Brian
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Babay Adi, Hava wrote:
> Thanks Craig for the useful information.
>
> ** **
>
> On the same regard ā Some of the mentioned modules in the mentioned
> application use a set of tables which is logically separate (there are no
> join statements with tables of ot
Thanks Craig for the useful information.
On the same regard ā Some of the mentioned modules in the mentioned application
use a set of tables which is logically separate (there are no join statements
with tables of other modules). What are the pros\cons of using a separate
database instead of a
Hi all,
I have a hot standby (via streaming replication) set up on a postgresql
9.0.4 system.
(I'm looking at base to eliminate differences in xlog and pg_log, etc)
The size of my base directory on the master is 775G, the size of the
base directory on the hot standby is 804G.
Is this normal
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Babay Adi, Hava wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> ** **
>
> Iām new to PostgreSQL, planning now a migration to PostgreSQL and would
> appreciate your help.
>
> ** **
>
> One aspect of the migration is re-thinking our DB structure.
>
> ** **
>
> The application
Hello, everyone. I've brought this up before, but it takes us quite a bit of
time to orchestrate this on our back-end for a variety of very good reasons.
Now, we're going to be migrating to PG 9.2 in the near future, and I've been
asked to vet my plan to ensure that I'm not talking crazy talk (o
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Gabriele Bartolini
wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 15:02:23 -0700 (PDT), Greg Williamson
> wrote:
>
>> Other than abandoning repmgr I don't see a solution. I've posted this
>> to the repmgr discussion group but have had zero responses (and,
>> frankly, a
Dear list,
I'm new to PostgreSQL, planning now a migration to PostgreSQL and would
appreciate your help.
One aspect of the migration is re-thinking our DB structure.
The application considered contains several modules (let's say ten), each one
uses and manages a small number of tables (maximum
Hi Greg,
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 15:02:23 -0700 (PDT), Greg Williamson
wrote:
Other than abandoning repmgr I don't see a solution. I've posted this
to the repmgr discussion group but have had zero responses (and,
frankly, am not holding my breath).
If you are 100% sure it is repmgr ... :)
I am
11 matches
Mail list logo