Re: [ADMIN] 64 bit rpms for 7.4.7??

Hi, > I still cant see RedHat 9 Source RPMS for the Postgres 8.0.1 in FTP > mirror sites , any ideas when it will up on FTP mirror site ? I don't have a x86_64 RedHat 9 machine, so I can't help you with that... Sander. ---(end of broadcast)--- TI

Re: [ADMIN] 64 bit rpms for 7.4.7??

Hi again, I've checked the mirrors and although there is a directory for x86 64 bit rpms, it's empty. Are there plans to build these any time soon? I should have built them. Sorry it took so long. Everything was delayed because of some problems at work adn at home. I will try to catch up with t

Re: [ADMIN] 64 bit rpms for 7.4.7??

Hi, I've checked the mirrors and although there is a directory for x86 64 bit rpms, it's empty. Are there plans to build these any time soon? I should have built them. Sorry it took so long. Everything was delayed because of some problems at work adn at home. I will try to catch up with the RPM

Re: [ADMIN] Less available diskspace after crashed CLUSTER

Hi, Sorry for replying to myself, but I had to point out that: I'm guessing that the new table/index files created during the CLUSTER didn't get released after the PANIC. Look for files that are not referenced by any relfilenode value in pg_class. Using the oid2name tool I get this: [...] I suspec

Re: [ADMIN] Less available diskspace after crashed CLUSTER

Hi Tom, 2005-01-15 15:17:46 [30605] PANIC: PANIC: could not write to file "/var/lib/pgsql/data/pg_xlog/xlogtemp.30605": Geen ruimte over op apparaat STATEMENT: CLUSTER; Hmm. I wonder why we have XLogFileInit forcing a PANIC for this. At one time it was called only from critical sections and s

[ADMIN] Less available diskspace after crashed CLUSTER

Hi, I was running a CLUSTER on a big database (approx. 8G) and I didn't anticipate the diskspace usage, so I ran out of diskspace. This is on PostgreSQL 7.4.6. The backend crashed with the following log messages: 2005-01-15 15:17:46 [30605] PANIC: PANIC: could not write to file "/var/lib/pgsq

Re: [ADMIN] These Lists Are Being Cut To FOUR

Hi, > Hello. My name is Mike Cox. I am in charge of the changing of these > postgresql lists. I have decided that we are going to drop most of the > lists from the vote. We will only be making 4 lists into real Usenet > newsgroups if we win the election. The rest of the lists are crap and > they t

Re: [ADMIN] RH-PostgreSQL version 7.3.4 is included RHEL 3

Hi, > "Sander Steffann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think there is some confusion about which PostgreSQL is included in RHEL3. > > I just checked and the following packages are in RHN channel Red Hat > > Enterprise Linux ES (v. 3 for x86): > > [sn

Re: [ADMIN] Replicate PostgreSQL with rsync

Hi, I am trying to replicate a PostgreSQL database with rsync. Does anyone have a experience with that? We wanted to transfer a database to another machine with the minimum amount of downtime. We used rsync to make a copy of the database while PostgreSQL was running. this ofcour

[ADMIN] RH-PostgreSQL version 7.3.4 is included RHEL 3

Hi, I think there is some confusion about which PostgreSQL is included in RHEL3. I just checked and the following packages are in RHN channel Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES (v. 3 for x86): postgresql-odbc-7.3-3 PostgreSQL ODBC driver. rh-postgresql-7.3.4-8 PostgreSQL client programs

Re: [ADMIN] RHEL

Apologies for sending HTML mail to the list. Here is a decent version of my message: Hi, > Im currently on red hat 7.3 running postgres. Everything is running fine. > Obviously, Im going to have to upgrade

Re: [ADMIN] RHEL

Hi, Im currently on red hat 7.3 running postgres.  Everything is running fine.  Obviously, Im going to have to upgrade to RHEL 3 in order to receive updates, etc.  Does anyone know of any problems with postgres running on RHEL 2.1 or RHEL 3? We run PostgreSQL on a RHEL 2.1 sys

Re: [ADMIN] H/W RAID 5 on slower disks versus no raid on faster HDDs

Hi, > In a production environment I would always favor some > kind of error protection. Either RAID 5 or RAID 1 > (mirroring). A hardware RAID controller is faster than > software RAID. Considering the speed of CPU's and busses these days, software RAID can be a lot faster than hardware RAID in

Re: [ADMIN] Tape/DVD Backup Suggestions?

Hi, > It's easy to believe you're saving money; the question is, how far are > your backup disks from the machine they're backing up? Some people have > a requirement for off-site backups so that they they still have their > data if their building burns down. Yep. In our situation tapes have to

Re: [ADMIN] multiple instances on one box?

I have seen one reason myself for this: running multiple versions of PostgreSQL on one machine. I have tried this once myself, to try out a new version while still providing our customers with the old version. Sander. - Original Message - From: "Andrew Perrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ti

Re: [ADMIN] databases and RAID ...

> On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 08:00:50AM -0700, Bill Cunningham wrote: > > No Raid 10 is Raid 1 + 0 its strong points are faster writes but slower > > reads. > > RAID 10 reads will actually be faster than RAID 5, but it will require > more disks. (2n instead of n+1). There also seems to be a combinat

Re: [ADMIN] 7.1 ... wtf?

mething to look at... We run on Linux here (RedHat 6.2 + updates) Sander Steffann. - Original Message - From: "Thomas Heller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 4:45 PM Subject: [ADMIN] 7.1 ... wtf? > Hi again, > >