From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Melvin Davidson
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 4:24 PM
To: Daniel Verite
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] clone_schema function
"seriously flawed" is a bit of a stretch. M
So for about a month now, we've been getting things prepared to use a BDR
cluster in a production, multi-region setup on aws. Our initial testing
produced some absolutely fantastic results with replication delays less
than 150ms between singapore, ireland, and north virginia and this is will
SSL en
Igor & David,
You are correct, I am subject to criticism, However, I have spent a few
days getting this to work as it should and it now does.
Even though the chance of a collision is not zero, it is still low and the
function does work.
I don't mind criticism, but when someone finds a problem, the
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Melvin Davidson
wrote:
> "seriously flawed" is a bit of a stretch. Most sane developers would not
> have schema names of one letter.
> They usually name a schema something practical, which totally avoids your
> nit picky exception.
> However, if you are that conce
"seriously flawed" is a bit of a stretch. Most sane developers would not
have schema names of one letter.
They usually name a schema something practical, which totally avoids your
nit picky exception.
However, if you are that concerned about the "serious flaw", you have the
option of using the meth
Melvin Davidson wrote:
> I've added error checking and verified that it now copies the
> current sequnce values, table data, views and functions.
The code dealing with functions is seriously flawed.
Consider that part:
SELECT pg_get_functiondef(func_oid) INTO qry;
SELECT replac
Melvin Davidson wrote:
> Thank you very much Alvaro. Now I can go back to being Chief Engineer of
> Sleeping Late @ retired. :)
What? No! You still have a lot of other Snippet pages to go through to
improve ;-)
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Developmen
I've got a poorly indexed query and was attempting a quick work around
in production by increasing work_mem when it was called. EXPLAIN ANALYZE
is telling me this:
Sort Method: external sort Disk: 1253824kB
So I set the work_mem to 2gb, still going to disk. I read Tom's
suggestion here
(ht
Thank you very much Alvaro. Now I can go back to being Chief Engineer of
Sleeping Late @ retired. :)
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Melvin Davidson wrote:
> > Alvaro,
> >
> > no I haven't updated the wiki (or git). To be honest, I'm retired and I
> > just don't want to
Melvin Davidson wrote:
> Alvaro,
>
> no I haven't updated the wiki (or git). To be honest, I'm retired and I
> just don't want to bother learning something new,
> but I do enjoy helping othersfrom time to time. I would consider it a favor
> if you would do the update for me.
I wouldn't want to pr
Alvaro,
no I haven't updated the wiki (or git). To be honest, I'm retired and I
just don't want to bother learning something new,
but I do enjoy helping othersfrom time to time. I would consider it a favor
if you would do the update for me.
TIA,
Melvin
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Alvaro He
Melvin Davidson wrote:
> Here is one more tweak of clone_schema.
Are you updating the wiki to match? If not (why?), I think at the very
least you should add a link in the wiki page to this thread.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support,
Here is one more tweak of clone_schema.
I've added an include_recs flag.
If FALSE, then no records are copied into the tables from the old_schema
and all sequences start with the minimum value.
If TRUE, then all records are copied and sequences are set tot the last
value.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at
On Friday, September 11, 2015, Andri Möll wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I'm giving DOMAINs a shot and created a simple one with a CHECK on
> PostgreSQL 9.4.4. Sadly, when the check fails, the thrown error (23514,
> check_violation) doesn't seem to contain the column information in the "c"
> field. Should it?
Hey,
I'm giving DOMAINs a shot and created a simple one with a CHECK on
PostgreSQL 9.4.4. Sadly, when the check fails, the thrown error (23514,
check_violation) doesn't seem to contain the column information in the
"c" field. Should it? Is it just not implemented?
http://www.postgresql.org/d
as there is no option for incremental update/insert on user and renaming
will have app query errors
I guess
1) creating temporary table (say temp_users) on table users with required
data/columns-list and index on column user_id,
...this will be faster as there will be no joins with other
16 matches
Mail list logo
