Re: [GENERAL] Locks Postgres

2017-02-09 Thread Patrick B
2017-02-10 18:18 GMT+13:00 John R Pierce : > On 2/9/2017 9:16 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > >> that spike in your graph suggests you had 8000 concurrent SELECT >> operations... >> > > errr, 7000, still way too many. > Thanks a lot John!! Got it PAtrick

Re: [GENERAL] Locks Postgres

2017-02-09 Thread John R Pierce
On 2/9/2017 9:16 PM, John R Pierce wrote: that spike in your graph suggests you had 8000 concurrent SELECT operations... errr, 7000, still way too many. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to

Re: [GENERAL] Locks Postgres

2017-02-09 Thread John R Pierce
On 2/9/2017 9:00 PM, Patrick B wrote: Access share = Does that mean queries were waiting because an update/delete/insert was happening? access share is taken by a SELECT, and all it blocks is an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock, which is taken by operations like ALTER TABLE, VACUUM FULL, and such

Re: [GENERAL] Locks Postgres

2017-02-09 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 02/09/2017 09:00 PM, Patrick B wrote: Hi guys I just wanna understand the locks in a DB server: Imagem inline 1 Access share = Does that mean queries were waiting because an update/delete/insert was happening? https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/explicit-locking.html I'm asking

[GENERAL] Locks Postgres

2017-02-09 Thread Patrick B
Hi guys I just wanna understand the locks in a DB server: [image: Imagem inline 1] Access share = Does that mean queries were waiting because an update/delete/insert was happening? I'm asking because I got a very big spike with > 30 seconds web response time. Running PG 9.3 Thanks! Patrick

Re: [GENERAL] clarification about standby promotion

2017-02-09 Thread Venkata B Nagothi
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:41:15 +1100 > Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Benoit Lobréau > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > I

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL on eMMC - Corrupt file system

2017-02-09 Thread Christoph Moench-Tegeder
## Thomas Güttler (guettl...@thomas-guettler.de): > Is running linux with postgres on eMMC a bad idea in general? I'd say that running anything with a read-write load on eMMC will end in pieces. It's ok to occasionally write something, but a mixed load is not really what these things were

[GENERAL] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?

2017-02-09 Thread Joshua Chamberlain
Hello, I use Postgres + PostGIS quite heavily, and recently have been taking full advantage of the new parallelism in 9.6. I'm now running queries in a few hours that used to take more than a day. However, parallelism is disabled for all queries that perform writes (as documented). I would

[GENERAL] How to troubleshoot "write on backend 0 failed"

2017-02-09 Thread David O'Mahony
Hi All, We are using pgpool 3.6.1 with two nodes in the cluster. We are seeing frequent occurrences where one node will be marked as offline. When this occurs we are seeing the following statements in our logs. 2017-02-09 09:45:38: pid 12125: WARNING: write on backend 0 failed with error

Re: [GENERAL] clarification about standby promotion

2017-02-09 Thread Rakesh Kumar
>Sure, but when you are doing a switchover, the standby is supposed to be >connected to the master when you shutdown the master. So based on the doc, >the standby should receive **everything** from the master before the master >actually shutdown. We use 9.5 and even in that version there is no

Re: [GENERAL] clarification about standby promotion

2017-02-09 Thread Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:41:15 +1100 Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Benoit Lobréau > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I would like to clarify something about standby promotion. From the > > sentence below. I understand that,

Re: [GENERAL] Running out of memory the hard way ...

2017-02-09 Thread Tom Lane
Bill Moran writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Bill Moran wrote: >>> What I feel is the best way to mitigate the situation, is to have some >>> setting that limits the maximum RAM any backend can consume. >> I've had some success using ulimit in the past,

Re: [GENERAL] Server SSL key with passphrase

2017-02-09 Thread Berend Tober
dhanuj hippie wrote: I have a postgres-9.6 server running with SSL enabled, and I have setup the certificates as per documentation. But currently the key file is not protected by passphrase. Does postgres provide a way to use passphrase protected keys ? If by "per documentation" you refer

[GENERAL] Server SSL key with passphrase

2017-02-09 Thread dhanuj hippie
Hi, I have a postgres-9.6 server running with SSL enabled, and I have setup the certificates as per documentation. But currently the key file is not protected by passphrase. Does postgres provide a way to use passphrase protected keys ? Thanks Dhanuj

[GENERAL] Fwd: LDAP configuration

2017-02-09 Thread PAWAN SHARMA
Hi All, I want to use pgsync method for LDAP configuration in current environment. So please help me and share the document or link for configuration. -Pawan