Re: transaction wrap around

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:52 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > On 12/4/2017 2:21 PM, chris kim wrote: > >> >> >> How would I investigate if my database is nearing a transaction wrap >> around. >> > > > it would be screaming bloody murder in the log, for one. > > Unfortunately, that

Re: transaction wrap around

John R Pierce writes: > On 12/4/2017 2:21 PM, chris kim wrote: >> How would I investigate if my database is nearing a transaction wrap >> around. > it would be screaming bloody murder in the log, for one. I think the simplest thing is to keep an eye on select

Re: WAL reducing size

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > sql2pg wrote: >> how about uncommitted(open transactions) . if a segment has 1 committed and >> 2 uncommitted transactions then will it keep the segment instead deleting it >> after checkpoint , since it has 2

Re: transaction wrap around

On 12/4/2017 2:21 PM, chris kim wrote: How would I investigate if my database is nearing a transaction wrap around. it would be screaming bloody murder in the log, for one. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

Re: [GENERAL] postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited

Thanks again for helping out. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-12-04 13:57:52 -0800, David Pacheco wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Andres Freund > wrote: > > > FWIW, I'd like to see a report of this around the

transaction wrap around

Hello, How would I investigate if my database is nearing a transaction wrap around. Best Regards, Chris

Re: [GENERAL] postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited

On 2017-12-04 13:57:52 -0800, David Pacheco wrote: > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > FWIW, I'd like to see a report of this around the time the issue > > occurred before doing anything further here. > > > > > This failure begins when this process

Re: [GENERAL] postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-11-20 11:12:08 -0800, David Pacheco wrote: > > $ ps -opid,rss,vsz,args -p 37627 > > PID RSS VSZ COMMAND > > 37627 2980 14968 /opt/postgresql/9.2.4/bin/postgres -D /manatee/pg/data > > > > I'm not sure

Re: WAL reducing size

sql2pg wrote: > how about uncommitted(open transactions) . if a segment has 1 committed and > 2 uncommitted transactions then will it keep the segment instead deleting it > after checkpoint , since it has 2 uncommitted transactions There is no connection between transaction commit and

Re: WAL reducing size

how about uncommitted(open transactions) . if a segment has 1 committed and 2 uncommitted transactions then will it keep the segment instead deleting it after checkpoint , since it has 2 uncommitted transactions -- Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-general-f1843780.html

Re: Centos 6.9 and centos 7

> On 4 Dec 2017, at 16:57, Nicola Contu wrote: > > No I did not run a vacuum analyze. Do you want me to try with that first? That means your statistics may not be up to date, although by now autovacuum should have done the job (you didn't turn that off or anything, did

Re: [GENERAL] postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:12 AM, David Pacheco wrote: > I understand if the community isn't interested in fixing this case if > other users aren't seeing it much, but surely it's still a bug that this > unusual case can result in a deadlock? > I've filed bug 14945 to cover

Re: WAL reducing size

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:50 AM, sql2pg wrote: > Is Postgres removes the committed transaction after archive. LIke in SQL > Server , which removes the committed transactions after taking Log backup. > If I understand correctly, yes - eventually. The docs explain the

Re: Centos 6.9 and centos 7

No I did not run a vacuum analyze. Do you want me to try with that first? @Tomas: Talking abut power management, I changed the profile for tuned-adm to latency-performance instead of balanced (that is the default) that is increasing performances for now and they are similar to centos 6.9. Time:

WAL reducing size

Is Postgres removes the committed transaction after archive. LIke in SQL Server , which removes the committed transactions after taking Log backup. -- Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-general-f1843780.html

attempting to retrieve column names from information schema fails.

Hi, I'm looking on some insights on the following problem on retrieving table column names from the information schema ( postgres 9.6.6 FreeBSD 11.1 ) When my client starts up up. Each thread ( 10 ) run this command. select column_name from information_schema.columns where table_name =

Re: [GENERAL] Schema Information .

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Brahmam Eswar wrote: > Hi , > > Is there anyway to pull the complete information of tables in a particular > schema . > > Table_Name ,Num_Rows,Columns,Indexed_Columns,Triggers. > > > > The context of this request is ,we are migrating the

Re: Problems with triggers and table lock

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Job wrote: > Hi guys, > > thank you for everything. > > Thanks for the queries, i ntocied the lock comes from here: > 16389 | flashstart |17409 | public | confs > | 5646 | postgres | tuple|

Re: Adding identity column to a non-empty table

Hi all, I'd like to resurrect this thread, as it seems that there was no definitive answer: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/959f28ef-4245-8349-eff9-0ff5f666df03%40lucee.org Does anyone know how to add an IDENTITY column to an existing non-empty table? Like Igal, I get the error message

Centos 6.9 and centos 7

Hello, we recently upgrade OS from centos 6.9 to a new server with centos 7. The centos 6.9 server has became the preproduction server now. We are running postgres 9.6.6 on both servers. They are both on SSD disk, these are the only differences : - DB partition on centos 7 is on a RAID 10 -

Re: Replication causing publisher node to use excessive cpu over time

OK, have installed perf and will report back when the problem gets noticeable. Martin. On 04/12/2017, 12:40, "Michael Paquier" wrote: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Martin Moore wrote: > After a few days, it’s noticeable that the

Re: ERROR: too many dynamic shared memory segments

I see that the segfault is under active discussion but just wanted to ask if increasing the max_connections to mitigate the DSM slots shortage is the way to go? -- regards, Jakub Glapa On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Thomas Munro < thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28,

Re: ISO8601 vs POSIX offset clarification

On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 14:03 +1100, Bharanee Rathna wrote: > To be more specific, I expected the output of both these queries to > be the same. > > # select '2017-12-01 11:00:00 +11:00'::timestamp with time zone at > time zone '+11:00'; > timezone > - >

R: Problems with triggers and table lock

Hi guys, thank you for everything. Thanks for the queries, i ntocied the lock comes from here: 16389 | flashstart |17409 | public | confs | 5646 | postgres | tuple| ExclusiveLock| t | 2 16389 | flashstart |17409 |