Hi All,
I am trying to install postgresql-jdbc but facing java error. sun java is
already installed but postgresql-jdbc installing openjdj. please let me
know how to resolve this and if you require any other details.
[root@172-24-1-54 ~]# java -version
java version 1.6.0_33
Java(TM) SE Runtime
Vivek Singh Raghuwanshi wrote:
I am trying to install postgresql-jdbc but facing java error.
It would be helpful to know which error you are facing.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
java version 1.6.0_33 is already installed but after firing yum install
postgresql-jdbc
java-1.6.0-openjdk is also going to installed as dependencies.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.atwrote:
Vivek Singh Raghuwanshi wrote:
I am trying to install
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Attached patch adds new GUC parameter 'compress_backup_block'.
When this parameter is enabled, the server just compresses FPW
(full-page-writes) in WAL by using pglz_compress() before inserting it
to the WAL
On 2013-09-11 19:39:14 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
* Benchmark
pgbench -c 32 -j 4 -T 900 -M prepared
scaling factor: 100
checkpoint_segments = 1024
checkpoint_timeout = 5min
(every checkpoint during benchmark were triggered by checkpoint_timeout)
* Result
[tps]
1344.2
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 03:08:24PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Merlin,
I vote 4x on the basis that for this setting (unlike almost all the
other memory settings) the ramifications for setting it too high
generally aren't too bad. Also, the o/s and temporary memory usage as
a share of
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Ronan Dunklau rdunk...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello.
I wanted to know what it would take to implement triggers on foreign tables.
It seems that statement-level triggers can work provided they are allowed in
the code.
Please find attached a simple POC patch that
Hello
* patched with minor warning
* compilable cleanly
* zero impact on PostgreSQL server functionality
* it does what was in proposal
** change 5sec progress as default (instead no progress)
** finalise a rate limit support - fixes a latency calculation
* code is clean
* documentation is
On Wednesday 11 September 2013 06:27:24 Michael Paquier wrote:
As your patch is targeting the implementation of a new feature, please
consider adding this patch to the next commit fest that is going to
begin in a couple of days:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view?id=19
I
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:13:16PM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
Your feelings on how far to back-patch?
All supported versions. The current behavior is a bug every way I look at it.
Agreed. I noticed a stale backend hanging around after a
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 09:18:30AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 03:08:24PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Merlin,
I vote 4x on the basis that for this setting (unlike almost all the
other memory settings) the ramifications for setting it too high
generally aren't
In order to modernize our documentation tool chain, I have made a few
tweaks to allow using FOP to build the PDF documentation. I'd like to
get some testing on different operating systems and versions thereof in
order to learn whether this solution is robust and easily accessible by
users and
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
Shouldn't it instead check the same things as PGSharedMemoryIsInUse()?
Offhand, I tend to agree that we should really be doing a very careful
job of looking at if an existing segment is still in use.
The concrete situation in which I encountered this
Bruce Momjian escribió:
So, are you saying you like 4x now?
Here is an arugment for 3x. First, using the documented 25% of RAM, 3x
puts our effective_cache_size as 75% of RAM, giving us no room for
kernel, backend memory, and work_mem usage. If anything it should be
lower than 3x, not
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:43:07PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian escribió:
So, are you saying you like 4x now?
Here is an arugment for 3x. First, using the documented 25% of RAM, 3x
puts our effective_cache_size as 75% of RAM, giving us no room for
kernel, backend
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:13:16PM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
Your feelings on how far to back-patch?
All supported versions. The current behavior is a bug every way I look at
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
I'm thinking to preserve postmaster.pid at immediate shutdown in all released
versions, but I'm less sure about back-patching a change to make
PGSharedMemoryCreate() pickier. On the one hand, allowing startup to proceed
On 09/11/2013 08:27 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 09:18:30AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 03:08:24PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Another argument in favor: this is a default setting, and by default,
shared_buffers won't be 25% of RAM.
So, are you
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Another argument in favor: this is a default setting, and by default,
shared_buffers won't be 25% of RAM.
So, are you saying you like 4x now?
Here is an arugment for 3x. First, using the documented 25% of RAM, 3x
On 2013-09-11 12:53:29 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:43:07PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian escribió:
So, are you saying you like 4x now?
Here is an arugment for 3x. First, using the documented 25% of RAM, 3x
puts our effective_cache_size
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-09-10 12:31:22 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I've been thinking of late that it might be time to retire
On 09/11/2013 02:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-09-10 12:31:22 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I've been
I think that most of the arguments in this thread drastically
overestimate the precision and the effect of effective_cache_size. The
planner logic behind it basically only uses it to calculate things
within a single index scan. That alone shows that any precise
calculation cannot be very
Hi Peter,
Nice to see the next version, won't have time to look in any details in
the next few days tho.
On 2013-09-10 22:25:34 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I am working on an analysis of the broader deadlock hazards - the
implications of simultaneously holding multiple shared buffer locks
On 2013-09-06 21:55:09 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
- Test recovery, such as by running a streaming replica under Memcheck
while
the primary runs make installcheck-world.
In general we need a lot more testing on the
I added the CREATE INDEX statement in the below citext regression
tests, since it seemed to have been omitted by accident:
-- Test aggregate functions and sort ordering
CREATE TEMP TABLE srt (
name CITEXT
);
INSERT INTO srt (name)
VALUES ('aardvark'),
('AAA'),
('aba'),
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 03:55:30PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-09-10 12:31:22 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 05:18:21PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
I've been getting some failures after an immediate shutdown or crash,
during severe IO stress, with the message:
LOG: XX000: select() failed in postmaster: Invalid argument
LOCATION: ServerLoop, postmaster.c:1560
It is trying
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 02:00:41PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:13:16PM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
Your feelings on how far to back-patch?
All
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Nice to see the next version, won't have time to look in any details in
the next few days tho.
Thanks Andres!
I think for this approach to be workable you also need to explain how we
can deal with stuff like toast
Noah Misch escribió:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 05:18:21PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
I think the problem is here, where there should be a Max rather than a Min:
commit 82233ce7ea42d6ba519aaec63008aff49da6c7af
Author: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org
Date: Fri Jun 28 17:20:53 2013
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:32:01AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
The concrete situation in which I encountered this involved PostgreSQL 9.2
and
an immediate shutdown with a backend that had blocked SIGQUIT. The backend
survived the immediate
Noah Misch-2 wrote
I'm thinking to preserve postmaster.pid at immediate shutdown in all
released
versions, but I'm less sure about back-patching a change to make
PGSharedMemoryCreate() pickier. On the one hand, allowing startup to
proceed
with backends still active in the same data
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 07:57:22PM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
Noah Misch-2 wrote
Making PGSharedMemoryCreate() pickier in all branches will greatly
diminish
the marginal value of preserving postmaster.pid, so I'm fine with dropping
the
postmaster.pid side of the proposal.
Its
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 07:19:14AM +, Amit kapila wrote:
On Saturday, February 02, 2013 9:08 PM Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
I think user should be
35 matches
Mail list logo
