Re: pg_checksums?

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 6:57 AM Alexander Kukushkin wrote: ... > As Michael already said, the following workflow works just fine (I did it > dozens of times): > 1. enable checksums on the standby node > 2. start the standby and let it catch up with the primary > 3. switchover to a standby node >

Re: Patroni vs pgpool II

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 11:13 PM Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > I am welcome you to > join and continue the discussion on pgpool mailing list. I truly believe that this problem – HA – is PostgreSQL's, not 3rd party's. And it's a shame that Postgres itself doesn't solve this. So we're discussing it here.

Re: Patroni vs pgpool II

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 9:17 PM Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > With quorum failover is enabled, w0, w1, and w2 communicate each other > to vote who is correct (if it cannot communicate, it regards other > watchdog is down). In the case above w0 and w1 are majority and will > win. Communication takes time

Re: What have I done!?!?!? :-)

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 8:10 AM Jan Wieck wrote: > So **IF** Active Record is using that feature, then it can dump any > amount of garbage into your PostgreSQL database and PostgreSQL will > happily accept it with zero integrity checking. > It's DISABLE TRIGGER ALL

Re: AWS vs GCP storage

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:27 PM Torsten Förtsch wrote: > Hi, > > I have a few databases with several TB-sized tables. We recently moved one > of those databases from AWS EC2 to GCP. Today I ran VACUUM FREEZE on those > tables and every time I saw our application freezing up (and throwing tons >

Re: Upgrade 9.5 cluster on Ubuntu 16.04

window or just some of them (which ones – amcheck can help to answer, for 9.5 it should be taken from here: https://github.com/petergeoghegan/amcheck). On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 11:17 AM Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote: > Logical way – dump/restore. > > Bringing PGDATA physically may lead to

Re: Upgrade 9.5 cluster on Ubuntu 16.04

Logical way – dump/restore. Bringing PGDATA physically may lead to corrupted indexes due to glibc version changes. 16.04 -> 18.04 shouldn't cause it, but it may. You can check btree index with amcheck and GIN indexes with a patched version of it (some backporting would be needed). You can find

Re: bottom / top posting

My thoughts: https://twitter.com/samokhvalov/status/1403408281389789189. Apologies for top-posting. On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 10:04 AM Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:21:00PM +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > > > I wonder about the tolerance of the world we live in. Somehow, I

Re: Framework for 0 downtime deploys

No silver bullets exist (yet). A couple of things I can recommend: 1. GitLab's experience of changing schema without downtime and maintaining backward compatibility – they have open documentation and a lot of things solved and documented - start here:

Re: Check constraints do not seem to be working!!!

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 12:26 AM Jitendra Loyal wrote: > Despite the above two constraints, the following rows get into the table: > insert into t (b , c) values (null, true), (null, false); > This behavior is described in the docs

Re: Christopher Browne

What a sad news. Rest In Peace, Christopher. Condolences to friends and family. On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 15:29 Steve Singer wrote: > > It is with much sadness that I am letting the community know that Chris > Browne passed away recently. > > Chris had been a long time community member and was

Re: POLL: Adding transaction status to default psql prompt

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 8:05 PM Vik Fearing wrote: > Because it isn't always easy to modify the .psqlrc file. This is > especially true if you frequently connect to other people's systems. > Exactly. You can tune your psql a lot, including excellent pspg, but then you frequently troubleshoot

Re: POLL: Adding transaction status to default psql prompt

+1 of course On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:55 PM Vik Fearing wrote: > Hello, > > I proposed a patch to add %x to PROMPT1 and PROMPT2 by default in psql. > > The effect of this is: > > - nothing at all when not in a transaction, > - adding a '*' when in a transaction or a '!' when in an aborted >

Re: RPC via WebSockets.

This is a very common task, definitely. As for WebSockets, there is an addition to PostgREST, postgrest-websockets https://github.com/diogob/postgres-websockets#readme PostgREST is not only for "give me contents", you can write functions (in any PL) and call them using POST /rpc/functionname.

Re: Can you please suggest how to configure hot_standby_feedback?

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 8:52 PM Konstantin Gredeskoul wrote: > A related question is — *how can you avoid doing auto vacuum during the > busy peak hours, and do more aggressive auto vacuuming at night during low > traffic?* Is that possible? > > I tried achieving that with a manual vacuum, but

Re: Upgrade/Downgrade

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 11:44 AM Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 08/23/2018 04:47 AM, Achilleas Mantzios wrote: > > On 23/08/2018 14:30, Sonam Sharma wrote: > >> No, I didn't. The version is not compatible with application, so need > >> to downgrade it > > > > Have you tried to tweak postgresql.conf

Re: Disabling/Enabling index before bulk loading

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:26 PM Ravi Krishna wrote: > > > > https://fle.github.io/temporarily-disable-all-indexes-of-a-postgresql-table.html > > > > > This does not work in RDS. In order to update system catalog tables > (pg_index), one needs privileges which is > denied in RDS. In RDS

Re: Rapid disk usage spikes when updating large tables with GIN indexes

Why not set up a spot EC2 instance with Postgres 10.1, load database from a dump (yes you’ll need to create one from RDS because they don’t provide direct access to dumps/backups; probably you need to get only specific tables) and repeat your actions, closely looking at filesystem. ср, 16 мая

Re: Reindex doesn't eliminate bloat

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote: > On 03/12/2018 05:20 PM, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> > wrote: > >> v8.4.12 >> > > This is *very

Re: Reindex doesn't eliminate bloat

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: > v8.4.12 > This is *very* old version, not supported by the community for many years. Check https://www.postgresql.org/ to see currently supported versions. You need to upgrade it.

Re: Meaning of query age in pg_stat_activity

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Jan De Moerloose wrote: > So the query is just the latest query and the time is the transaction time > since this query, i suppose ? > Thanks for your answer, i will try to make the transaction shorter as you > suggest. > Yep. This is a very

Re: Meaning of query age in pg_stat_activity

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:19 PM, Jan De Moerloose wrote: > The state is 'idle in transaction'. > So you have long-running *transactions*, not queries. This is not good for an OLTP system, because some transaction can wait of others, which are "idle in transaction" but do