On 6/22/2016 11:38 PM, sudalai wrote:
I am using PostgresSQL 9.5.0.
while this likely has no bearing on your problem, you really should
upgrade to 9.5.latest, 9.5.3 is out now.sub version upgrades like
9.5.0 to 9.5.3 are painless, just upgrade and restart the server with
the new code.
Hi List,
I notice that INFO is not included in the list of settable levels for
client_min_messages:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/runtime-config-logging.html#GUC-CLIENT-MIN-MESSAGES
This seems to be true several versions back so I wonder: what is the
rationale? Is it like the rever
I am using PostgresSQL 9.5.0.
I have customized :
https://github.com/michaelpq/pg_plugins/tree/master/decoder_raw to get
result as json. It works fine. suddenly i getting below exception while
consuming or peeking changes through that logical slot.
Does postgres removed the rows needed for that
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
>
> Note 2:
>
> This is odd, but this index is used by the planner:
> CREATE INDEX idx_partial_fkey_id ON table_a(fkey_1, id)
> WHERE col_partial IS NOT FALSE;
>
> but this index is never used:
>
On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:38 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> What query? A self-contained email would be nice.
This was the same query as in the previous email in the thread. I didn't think
to repeat it. I did include it below.
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/indexes-index-only-sc
I had the same issue... A slave server had missing wal_files... and it
wasn't synced.
I had to re-sync all the DB, by running the pg_basebackup command
So.. basically, what I did is:
1 - Ensure that the wal_files are being inserted into the slave
2 - Backup the recovery.conf, postgresql.conf
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:20:38 +
Sameer Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:08 PM Vlad Arkhipov wrote:
>
> > I am running PostgreSQL 9.5.
> >
> > CREATE TABLE t (id BIGINT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, name TEXT);
> >
> > The constraint that the data must satisfy is `there is no more than 3
> >
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Michelle Schwan
wrote:
> I have a question about the upgrade from 9.5.2 to 9.6
>
>
>
> I know 9.6 is still in beta – but I’m trying to be ahead of the game!
>
>
>
> I found instructions on how to move from 9.4 to 9.5. I will try testing
> these steps with 9.5 to
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
>
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 4:25 AM, Erik Gustafson wrote:
>
> > don't you want an index on t_a2b.col_a, maybe partial where col_a=1 ?
>
> that table has indexes on all columns. they're never referenced because
> the rows are so short. this w
I have a question about the upgrade from 9.5.2 to 9.6
I know 9.6 is still in beta - but I'm trying to be ahead of the game!
I found instructions on how to move from 9.4 to 9.5. I will try testing these
steps with 9.5 to 9.6
However, I was wondering if there is a "nicer" way to upgrade - simila
On Jun 22, 2016, at 4:25 AM, Erik Gustafson wrote:
> don't you want an index on t_a2b.col_a, maybe partial where col_a=1 ?
that table has indexes on all columns. they're never referenced because the
rows are so short. this was just an example query too, col_a has 200k
variations
After a
On 6/22/2016 3:07 AM, Vlad Arkhipov wrote:
CREATE TABLE t (id BIGINT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, name TEXT);
The constraint that the data must satisfy is `there is no more than 3
records with the same name`.
I am not in control of queries that modify the table, so advisory
locks can hardly be of
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Alan Hodgson
wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 June 2016 19:34:18 Ramalingam, Sankarakumar wrote:
> > Hi I have my standby (streaming replication) down due to missing wal
> files.
> > You would see the same error in the logs stating "cannot find the wal
> file
> > ..." What
On Tuesday 21 June 2016 19:34:18 Ramalingam, Sankarakumar wrote:
> Hi I have my standby (streaming replication) down due to missing wal files.
> You would see the same error in the logs stating "cannot find the wal file
> ..." What is the best way to get it going so that when we switch between
> st
well,
the for your reply,
we have PG on linux ubuntu 14.04 distribution, but pls remember
this issue started when our DB size increase to 3-5GB, now it is
16GB.
this happend only when we use "CREATE OR REPLACE"
since I can run a query and get reply a
Hi I have my standby (streaming replication) down due to missing wal files. You
would see the same error in the logs stating "cannot find the wal file ..."
What is the best way to get it going so that when we switch between standby and
primary once in a while they are in sync?
Currently I am wor
On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:36 PM, David G. Johnston
mailto:david.g.johns...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Please don't top-post.
Yes, using "[VACUUM] ANALYZE" is what was meant (the VACUUM doesn't hurt - and
possibly helps - but wasn't required). ANALYZE recomputes the statistics for
your database. The ap
On 06/22/2016 04:00 AM, SDAG wrote:
Hi
Postgres version :
*PostgreSQL 9.2.4 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.4.7
20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-3), 64-bit*
We transfer from one server to another (with better cpu an ram) our system
using vm converter and when I try to backup database
Le Wed, 22 Jun 2016 18:07:46 +0800,
Vlad Arkhipov a écrit :
> I am running PostgreSQL 9.5.
>
> CREATE TABLE t (id BIGINT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, name TEXT);
I guess this is not your definitive definition of the table and you might
have some other fields isn't it ?
I can see multiple way to chan
Le Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:49:13 +,
Albe Laurenz a écrit :
> Sameer Kumar wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:08 PM Vlad Arkhipov wrote:
> >> I am running PostgreSQL 9.5.
> >>
> >> CREATE TABLE t (id BIGINT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, name TEXT);
> >>
> >> The constraint that the data must satisfy
Hi
Postgres version :
*PostgreSQL 9.2.4 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.4.7
20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-3), 64-bit*
We transfer from one server to another (with better cpu an ram) our system
using vm converter and when I try to backup database have an error :
*pg_dump: reading s
That is why I need to lock the table before. The transactions are
running at the READ COMMITTED isolation level.
On 06/22/2016 06:49 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
But be warned that this will only work if all transactions involved use
the isolation level SERIALIZABLE.
--
Sent via pgsql-general ma
Sameer Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:08 PM Vlad Arkhipov wrote:
>> I am running PostgreSQL 9.5.
>>
>> CREATE TABLE t (id BIGINT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, name TEXT);
>>
>> The constraint that the data must satisfy is `there is no more than 3
>> records with the same name`.
>>
>> I am no
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:08 PM Vlad Arkhipov wrote:
> I am running PostgreSQL 9.5.
>
> CREATE TABLE t (id BIGINT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, name TEXT);
>
> The constraint that the data must satisfy is `there is no more than 3
> records with the same name`.
>
> I am not in control of queries that modi
I am running PostgreSQL 9.5.
CREATE TABLE t (id BIGINT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, name TEXT);
The constraint that the data must satisfy is `there is no more than 3
records with the same name`.
I am not in control of queries that modify the table, so advisory locks
can hardly be of help to me.
O
Vlad Arkhipov wrote:
> I have a constraint that requires a table to be locked before checking
> it (i.e. no more than 2 records with the same value in the same column).
> If I lock the table in the SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE mode, any vacuuming (or
> autovacuuming) process prevents me from checking the co
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:10 PM Vlad Arkhipov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a constraint that requires a table to be locked before checking
> it (i.e. no more than 2 records with the same value in the same column).
> If I lock the table in the SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE mode, any vacuuming (or
> autovacuum
Hello,
I have a constraint that requires a table to be locked before checking
it (i.e. no more than 2 records with the same value in the same column).
If I lock the table in the SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE mode, any vacuuming (or
autovacuuming) process prevents me from checking the constraint. What
a
Hi,
don't you want an index on t_a2b.col_a, maybe partial where col_a=1 ?
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:55 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> Aside from the name these indexes are identical...
>
>
> sorry. tired eyes copy/pasting between wi
Excellent Scott!
Thank you!
Francesco
Da: Scott Marlowe [scott.marl...@gmail.com]
Inviato: martedì 21 giugno 2016 2.06
A: Job
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Oggetto: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum full: alternatives?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Job wrote:
>
30 matches
Mail list logo
