fanlijing wrote:
> Actually, now I'm confused with another problem, that is:
> Oracle: for update wait 10
> PostgreSQL: no support for the parameter "wait"
>
> What should I do when I'm doing porting on this point?
> If I get rid of the parameter "wait", there would be a dead lock in my
program...
I have a system with archive log shipping to a standby server read only
with replication streaming.
is possible to use the truncate in the primary or it will affect the log
shipping architecture and will corrupt the standby server??
thanks
--
Silvio Brandani
---
Utilizziamo i dati pers
2011/12/7 Silvio Brandani :
> I have a system with archive log shipping to a standby server read only with
> replication streaming.
> is possible to use the truncate in the primary or it will affect the log
> shipping architecture and will corrupt the standby server??
It Just Works.
--
Simon R
Hello,
I wonder whether the number of connections is still limited on Windows 64-bit
if you also use a 64-bit version of PostgreSQL:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_%26_Installing_PostgreSQL_On_Native_Windows#I_cannot_run_with_more_than_about_125_connections_at_once.2C_despite_having_cap
This has to do with my personal home environment.
I'm running Oracle 11gR2 DBMS with 4 instances using a single home
directory. For each of the instances I'm using LVM file systems with 10
logical volumes defined (/dbmsu00 used for the install and /dbmsu01 - u09
for the required files created
On 7 Prosinec 2011, 15:13, Gene Poole wrote:
> This has to do with my personal home environment.
>
> I'm running Oracle 11gR2 DBMS with 4 instances using a single home
> directory. For each of the instances I'm using LVM file systems with 10
> logical volumes defined (/dbmsu00 used for the install
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:13:10 -0500, Gene Poole wrote:
> This has to do with my personal home environment.
>
> I'm running Oracle 11gR2 DBMS with 4 instances using a single home
> directory. For each of the instances I'm using LVM file systems with 10
> logical volumes defined (/dbmsu00 used for
I'm pretty sure that the answer to this question is no, but I wanted to
verify.
Given the following scenario (pg 9.0):
Server A (Master), Server B (A's streaming replication Slave), Server C
(A's streaming replication Slave)
If you lose Server A, is there anyway to promote Server B to master and
From: pgsql-admin-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-admin-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Chris Hoover
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 12:05 PM
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Admin
Subject: [ADMIN] Question about multiple slaves and Master loss.
I'm pretty sure that the answer to this ques
Can you have a slave of a slave?
Basically set up
A --> B --> C
also
A --> D --> E
if A goes down, promote B which is protected by C
If B goes down, D is your protection for A
If C goes down, who cares.
It takes 5 machines, but would give great protection.
Evan.
Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON
> -Original Message-
> From: Evan Rempel [mailto:erem...@uvic.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:12 PM
> To: Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA)
> Cc: Chris Hoover; pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Admin
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Question about multiple slaves and Master loss.
>
> Can you hav
It appears that I have a bad block/disk sector etc., which is preventing
me from retrieving the rows from this table. All other tables within
this database is fine.
In preparation for zeroing out the bad block I tried to do a cold backup/
copy
cp -r * ../data2/
and received the following fro
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:22:05 +, jkells wrote:
> I do not have a recent backup of this database/table
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
Here's some help: Next time you establish a database, set up and test the
backup regime.
We hear this tale of woe time and time again. I have *no* sympathy
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 22:09:23 +, Walter Hurry wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:22:05 +, jkells wrote:
>
>> I do not have a recent backup of this database/table
>>
>> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Here's some help: Next time you establish a database, set up and test
> the backup regime
jkells wrote:
> I tried to do a cold backup/copy
> cp -r * ../data2/
>
> and received the following from cp
> cp: base/9221176/9221183: I/O error
That sounds like your storage system is failing, quite independently
from PostgreSQL. Copy the entire data directory tree to some other
medium i
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 22:20:30 +, jkells wrote:
> I am relying on identifying and correcting a bad block.
Well, good luck with that. Most of the time you can't. Just check your
disk, replace it if necessary, restore from your backup and roll forward.
Oh, you can't do that, since you didn't b
On 12/08/2011 08:20 AM, Walter Hurry wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 22:20:30 +, jkells wrote:
I am relying on identifying and correcting a bad block.
Well, good luck with that. Most of the time you can't. Just check your
disk, replace it if necessary, restore from your backup and roll forward
On 12/08/2011 07:41 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
That sounds like your storage system is failing, quite independently
from PostgreSQL. Copy the entire data directory tree to some other
medium immediately, and preserve this copy. If you hit bad blocks,
retry if possible.
If you find files you ca
18 matches
Mail list logo
