Hi,
I tried to create a standby system as per the steps mentioned in the
following article
http://archives.postgresql.org/sydpug/2006-10/msg1.php.
Can anybody let me know the steps which are supposed to be followed to make
the standby machine for read access? and how it should be one.
Al
Greg Smith wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Nelson Kotowski wrote:
I identified that the cluster command over the lineitem table (cluster
idx_lineitem on lineitem) is the responsible. I got to this conclusion
because when i run it in the 1GB and 2GB database i am able to
complete this script in 10
On 4/24/07, Nimesh Satam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can anybody let me know the steps which are supposed to be followed to make
the standby machine for read access? and how it should be one.
Not possible at the moment. The warm standby is not "hot" -- it cannot
be used for queries while it's ac
We have a table which we want to normalize and use the same SQL to
perform selects using a view.
The old table had 3 columns in it's index
(region_id,wx_element,valid_time).
The new table meteocode_elmts has a similar index but the region_id is a
reference to another table region_lookup and wx_e
Dan Shea wrote:
We have a table which we want to normalize and use the same SQL to
perform selects using a view.
The old table had 3 columns in it's index
(region_id,wx_element,valid_time).
The new table meteocode_elmts has a similar index but the region_id is a
reference to another table reg
Version is PWFPM_DEV=# select version();
version
PostgreSQL 7.4 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.2.3
20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3
* Dan Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070424 19:33]:
> Version is PWFPM_DEV=# select version();
> version
>
>
> PostgreSQL 7.4 on i686-pc-linux-gnu,
Dan Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You make it sound so easy. Our database size is at 308 GB.
Well, if you can't update major versions that's understandable; that's
why we're still maintaining the old branches. But there is no excuse
for not running a reasonably recent sub-release within you
Tom Lane wrote:
Dan Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You make it sound so easy. Our database size is at 308 GB.
Well, if you can't update major versions that's understandable; that's
why we're still maintaining the old branches. But there is no excuse
for not running a reasonably rec
