I will try the the RPMs from the rhel 6 link post updates.
Thanks
Bhushan Pathak
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Adrian Klaver adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
wrote:
On 06/09/2014 01:53 AM, Bhushan Pathak wrote:
I do not have any earlier versions of postgres installed, neither a
parallel
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Jonathan Vanasco postg...@2xlp.com wrote:
I can't figure out which one to use. This is on a steadily growing
table of around 20MM rows that gets 20-80k new records a day, but existing
records are rarely updated.
The question as always is a time-space
Vick Khera vi...@khera.org wrote:
Jonathan Vanasco postg...@2xlp.com wrote:
Personally in these days of cheap disks I'd go with the dedicated
column. Given that, you want to just have a GIN index on that one
column, and the query you want, given some plain text string like
fluffy dog is
On 06/09/2014 10:02 PM, Khangelani Gama wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Klaver [mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:42 AM
To: Khangelani Gama; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_standby replication problem
On 06/09/2014 11:15 AM,
My extension has a config table that is dumped by pg_dump and populated by
pg_restore.
However, this table has triggers on it that I would like not to do anything
if the table is being populated by pg_restore. I want the triggers to
operate only if the user is manipulating the table directly after
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Moshe Jacobson mo...@neadwerx.com wrote:
My extension has a config table that is dumped by pg_dump and populated by
pg_restore.
However, this table has triggers on it that I would like not to do
anything if the table is being populated by pg_restore. I want
On Jun 10, 2014, at 8:26 AM, Vick Khera wrote:
Thanks so much for this.
We do a lot of searching on this column, so pre-computing seems to be the way.
I'm not worried about disk space for now, and can revisit that later if there
is a problem
Just for clarification on this:
Option A (less
My extension has a config table that is dumped by pg_dump and
populated by pg_restore.
However, this table has triggers on it that I would like not to do
anything if the table is being populated by pg_restore. I want the
triggers to operate only if the user is manipulating the table
Hi Moshe:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Moshe Jacobson mo...@neadwerx.com wrote:
My extension has a config table that is dumped by pg_dump and populated by
pg_restore.
Is there a way for my extension's trigger functions to return immediately
when triggered by pg_restore?
Is there any
Thank You, I will have a look.
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Klaver [mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 3:45 PM
To: Khangelani Gama; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_standby replication problem
On 06/09/2014 10:02 PM, Khangelani Gama
This went outside the purview of the mailing list.
I wanted to get some input regarding the odd behaviour of the query
planner.
Mostly out of curiosity.
This (http://explain.depesz.com/s/vj4) query plan has actual time = 17217
vs.
this one (http://explain.depesz.com/s/ojX) which has actual time
Is it safe to assume that my working PG 8.3 archive command on the
master and recovery.conf (using contrib's pg_standby) on the standby
will work the same under 9.3?
That is, under PG 8.3, my master server uses:
archive_mode = on
archive_command = '~/postgresql/bin/copyWAL %p %f'
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:13 PM, David Wall d.w...@computer.org wrote:
Is it safe to assume that my working PG 8.3 archive command on the master
and recovery.conf (using contrib's pg_standby) on the standby will work the
same under 9.3?
Yes, it will work just fine. Of course you can't load
On 6/10/2014 11:54 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:13 PM, David Wall d.w...@computer.org
mailto:d.w...@computer.org wrote:
Is it safe to assume that my working PG 8.3 archive command on the
master and recovery.conf (using contrib's pg_standby) on the
Hi everyone,
I am using a partial functional index on a table where F(a) = a. Querying
whre F(a) = a hits the index as expected. However the reverse statement a
= F(a) does not. I have verified this in 9.3.4.
Is this a deficiency with the query planner, or are these not actually
equivalent?
Brian Dunavant br...@omniti.com writes:
I am using a partial functional index on a table where F(a) = a. Querying
whre F(a) = a hits the index as expected. However the reverse statement a
= F(a) does not. I have verified this in 9.3.4.
Is this a deficiency with the query planner, or are
16 matches
Mail list logo
