Re: [ADMIN] Installing PostgreSQL as postgress versus root Debate!
Put all your eggs in one basket, and WATCH THAT BASKET. Better yet, pay someone more reliable than oneself to watch it. Preferably a well-paid and happy fox. Or _maybe_ put your eggs in an invisible super-basket? Not trolling, just checking the analogy integrity field. M ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [ADMIN] NIC to NIC connection
Title: Message You would assign a different subnet to the connection, and then tell the servers to connect to the PG server's address on that subnet. No other changes required. Very odd setup though. If you want a 'private' connection then use a switch, rather than needing umpty NICs in the PG server. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kent AndersonSent: 19 October 2004 17:05To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] OrgSubject: [ADMIN] NIC to NIC connection We are upgrading our servers and have run into an interesting situation. It has been proposed that we have a direct connection from the web servers to thepostgres server via extra NICs. Has anyone done this before and how big a project would it be to alter ASP and Java applications to make use of such a connection? Before we even waste time installing the NIC's I would like a sense of how hard it is to get postgres to use that kind of a connection vs over the Internet. We are looking to increasecommunication speed between the web servers and database serveras much as possible. Thanks Kent Anderson
Re: [ADMIN] NIC to NIC connection
Switches are not security devices. While it is harder to sniff packets on switches, you can't count on them to prevent hostile machines on the switch from playing games with the arp protocol. Also I believe that if a switch doesn't remember where a particular mac address is it will send the packet to all of the attached ports. If you have 6 app servers it's just daft to stick 6 NICs in your DB server. If absolute privacy is a concern (not mentioned by the OP), then use a dedicated switch (or switches) for the 'private' subnet. Even better, use SSH. But all this is over the top for 99.9% of uses anyway. A VLAN is as private as anything else, so you can just create a VLAN on your current switch fabric and use that. No kind of traffic on a VLAN will hit any other VLAN. Unless of course someone has hacked your switch, set up a mirror port, attached a sniffer or other hacked machine to it, and is assiduously reading your traffic, in which case you have bigger problems M ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [ADMIN] PLEASE GOD HELP US!
Got any suggestions now?!? I was sort of looking for more information / insight on my postgresql.conf file... but it seems we had to get the IS HE A MORON question answered :P Anyhow, again thank you for any help you can lend... Well, try not to SHOUT is a good suggestion. Also, how about posting the output of explain analyze for the queries that go into a making typical page (taken while the DB is under load preferably). ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
[ADMIN] Reposted - large object storage
Hi again, It seems I posted in HTML before, sorry about that... It seems I'm trying to solve the same problem as Richard Emberson had a while ago (thread here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2002-03/msg01199.php). Essentially I am storing a large number of large objects in the DB (potentially tens or hundreds of gigs), and would like the pg_largeobject table to be stored on a separate FS. But of course it's not just one file to symlink and then forget about, it's a number of files that get created. So, has anyone come up with a way to get the files for a table created in a particular place? I know that tablespsaces aren't done yet, but a kludge will do (or a patch come to that - we're runing redhat's 7.2.3 RPMs, but could switch if necessary). I had thought that if the filenames were predictable it might be possible to precreate a bunch of zero-length files and symlink them in advance, but that's perhaps _too_ kludgey... I'm having a rummage around in the code at the moment, and it seems like it might be possible to get PG to put each table in its own directory. Anybody seen that tried before? Cheers Matt ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
[ADMIN] Postgres large objects
Title: Message Hello all, It seems I'm trying to solve the same problem as Richard Emberson had a while ago (thread here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2002-03/msg01199.php). Essentially I am storing a large number of large objects in the DB (potentially tens or hundreds of gigs), and would like the pg_largeobject table to be stored on a separate FS. But of course it's not just one file to symlink and then forget about, it's a number of files that get created. So, has anyone come up with a way to get the files for a table created in a particular place? I know that tablespsaces aren't done yet, but a kludge will do (or a patch come to that - we're runing redhat's 7.2.3 RPMs, but could switch if necessary). I had thought that if the filenames were predictable it might be possible to precreate a bunch of zero-length files and symlink them in advance... Cheers Matt
Re: [ADMIN] Postgres large objects
Thanks, but it's already on a RAID array with a battery backed controller and a journaled FS. The deal is that I don't really want to spend the money on expanding that storage for data that isn't very critical at all. I want to stick these blobs on a cheap bunch of ATA disks basically, as comparing the price of a terabyte of ATA mirrored disks and the same TB on SCSI hardware raid is enlightening. M -Original Message- From: Bradley Kieser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 May 2004 11:03 To: Matt Clark Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Postgres large objects Matt, Not really the answer that you are looking for and you may already do this, but if it's a disk space or performance issue then I would suggest moving the PGDATA dir (or the location if you are using locations) onto a RAID5 disk array - means you can ramp up the space and you get the performance gains of RAID5, not to mention the safety of a FS that recovers from disk failure! Brad Matt Clark wrote: Hello all, It seems I'm trying to solve the same problem as Richard Emberson had a while ago (thread here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2002-03/msg01199.php). Essentially I am storing a large number of large objects in the DB (potentially tens or hundreds of gigs), and would like the pg_largeobject table to be stored on a separate FS. But of course it's not just one file to symlink and then forget about, it's a number of files that get created. So, has anyone come up with a way to get the files for a table created in a particular place? I know that tablespsaces aren't done yet, but a kludge will do (or a patch come to that - we're runing redhat's 7.2.3 RPMs, but could switch if necessary). I had thought that if the filenames were predictable it might be possible to precreate a bunch of zero-length files and symlink them in advance... Cheers Matt ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [ADMIN] Frequent 'deadlock detected' in 7.4 ... or just my bad
1. a traffic table is read in, and loaded into a hash table that is
ordered by company_id, ip_id and port:
$traffic{$ip_rec{$ip}{'company_id'}}{$ip_id}{$port} += $bytes1 + $bytes2;
2. a foreach loop is run on that resultant list to do the updates to the
database:
foreach $company_id ( keys %traffic ) {
foreach $ip_id ( keys %{$traffic{$company_id}} ) {
foreach $port ( keys %{$traffic{$company_id}{$ip_id}} ) {
and the updates are done based on those 3 values, plus the byte value
of $traffic{$company_id}{$ip_id}{$port} ...
Now, my first mistake may be that I'm mis-assuming that the hashes will
be read in a sorted order ... ? If this is the case, though, then sort
order shouldn't be an issue, as all servers would be sorted the same way
The output of keys(%hash) is NOT ordered! Try:
foreach $company_id ( sort keys %traffic ) {
foreach $ip_id ( sort keys %{$traffic{$company_id}} ) {
foreach $port ( sort keys %{$traffic{$company_id}{$ip_id}} ) {
Matt
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [ADMIN] Database Encryption (now required by law in Italy)
What's wrong with using a LoopAES filesystem? It protects against someone walking off with the server, or at least the hard disk, and being able to see the data. Yes, but only if the password has to entered manually [1] at boot time. And it gives zero protection against someone who gains root access to the server. So you _also_ have to encrypt the sensitive data before giving it to the DB, using a key that is not stored on the DB server. Of course that means your app servers have to have _those_ passwords/ keys entered manually at boot time, or else someone who roots them can read your sensitive data quite trivially. And to do any better than that you need one of those very snazzy cards from nCipher or whoever, that allow you to process encrypted data in a hardware sandbox so even your application doesn't see it, or at least only allow signed code to manipulate the data. Matt [1] There are ways of avoiding having to enter the info manually, but they're very tricky to implement securely. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [ADMIN] DELETE FROM protection
BEGIN; DELETE FROM mytable; !!! OOOPS ROLLBACK; -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeremy Smith Sent: 20 February 2004 06:06 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ADMIN] DELETE FROM protection This may be an all-time idiotic question, but when I used phpmysql, when I would type in a DELETE FROM query in the SQL window, it would make me confirm it before I allowed it to go through. I don't think in all of the presumably thousands of times that I used it that I ever canceled out of the statement, but I always liked that it is there. So now with pgsql, when I am typing DELETE FROM until I get to the WHERE part of the statement, I get a little nervous because I know hitting Enter by mistake will wipe out that table. Of course, I have backups, but it is a live site with alot of traffic and I would hate to have to shut things down while I restored the DB. Anyway, this may all seem silly, but is there a setting in pgsql to do this? Thanks, Jeremy ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [ADMIN] Alternative to Money ...
.. I can't _quite_ tell if you're serious or not ... :)
If you are serious, are you saying to do something like:
CREATE TABLE new_money (product text, dollars int4, cents int4);
Ha :-) That would not be serious. I'm pretty sure he meant to just store the product
cost in cents instead of dollars, e.g.
CREATE TABLE new_money (product text, cents int4);
INSERT INTO new_money (product, cents) values ('Flowbee','1995');
INSERT INTO new_money (product, cents) values ('Garth Brooks\'s
Greatest Hits','999');
M
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ADMIN] Snapshot as Backup
Title: Message The consensus from previous discussions (search for 'LVM' in the archives) is essentially that it definitely *should* work, some people *do* use it successfully, but that you *must* test it thoroughly in your own setup under heavy write loadbefore relying on it. PG will believe it has 'crashed' when you start it from a restored snapshot, and PG is designed to recover perfectly well from crashes. If you stop the postmaster before the snapshot is taken then it will definitely work fine. Matt -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Ed MurphySent: 13 January 2004 17:16To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [ADMIN] Snapshot as Backup Hello, I'm using Red Hat Enterprise v2.1 and PostgreSQL v7.3.4. Our hardware setup includes a large Storage Area Network (SAN). The systems folks are going to utilize a snapshot type backup to backup the file system. This snapshot will include PGDATA and all the PostgreSQL files. My question is if I restore this snapshot will PostgreSQL work? I know if doing a typical file system backup of PostgreSQL I must first stop the postmaster or the backup will not produce a useable PostgreSQL system. Is it necessary to stop the postmaster for this snapshot backup also? Thanks, Ed Murphy The University of Arizona
Re: [ADMIN] performance problem - 10.000 databases
I could made persistent connection, but with 10.000 clients it will kill the server. But if they're virtual domains, why would you need one connection per domain? You should only need one connection per apache process... ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [ADMIN] performance problem - 10.000 databases
W licie z pi, 31-10-2003, godz. 12:25, Matt Clark pisze: Ooh, I see. That's a tricky one. Do you really need that level of separation? Well, if you talk with the clients, and they promise, that they will not access to other databasess, and specially don't do drop database my_bes_fried_db I can put: host any any 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 trust in the very beginning of pg_hba.conf ;) I was more thinking that it might be possible to manage the security at a different level than the DB. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [ADMIN] performance problem - 10.000 databases
Hmm, maybe you need to back off a bit here on your expectations. You said your test involved 400 clients simultaneously running queries that hit pretty much all the data in each client's DB. Why would you expect that to be anything *other* than slow? And does it reflect expected production use? Unless those 10,000 sites are all fantastically popular, surely it's more likely that only a small number of queries will be in progress at any given time? You're effectively simulating running 400 _very_ popular dynamic websites off one 2-cpu DB server. You also said that CPU is pegged at 100%. Given that you've got 400 backends all competing for CPU time you must have an insane load average too, so improving the connect time might prove to be of no use, as you could well just get fasert connects and then slower queries! Sorry this email wasn't more constructive ;-) M -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Marek Florianczyk Sent: 31 October 2003 13:20 To: Jamie Lawrence Cc: Matt Clark; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ADMIN] performance problem - 10.000 databases W licie z pi, 31-10-2003, godz. 13:54, Jamie Lawrence pisze: On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Matt Clark wrote: I was more thinking that it might be possible to manage the security at a different level than the DB. We do this with users and permissions. Each virtual host has an apache config include specifying a db user, pass (and database, although most of them use the same one). Permissions on the database tables are set so that a given vhost can only access their own data. Our setup is mod_perl. Don't know how one would go about doing this with PHP, but I imagine it has some mechanism for per-vhost variables or similar. So, as I understand apache vhost can only connect to specified database. Strange... no PHP only mod_perl that fetch data from database and writes html document ? So, clients don't make any scripts, and don't use function like pgconnect? Do they use CGI with mod_perl, and they write scripts in perl ? Interesting. Don't know if it's possible with PHP, don't think so. But... If I would have 200, or even 900 clients I would do apache with vhost. But when I have 10.000 clients, apache cannot work with vhosts. ( some system limitation ) So we use our own dynamic vhost module. When request is made to server, it checks domain part of the request, and search i LDAP what is DocumentRoot for that domain, and then return proper file. Config looks like it was only one vhost, but it works with 10.000 domains ;) No, I think that your solution, would not work for us. Everything is complicated when a large number of anything occurs. ;) greetings sorry for my bad english ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [ADMIN] Partial indexes ... any good theoretical discussion?
It won't work. You could instead have a separate boolean attribute called 'expired' for each row. Set this to true whenever you expire the row, and create the partial index using that attr. Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff Boes Sent: 03 October 2003 17:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ADMIN] Partial indexes ... any good theoretical discussion? I've only just now noticed that CREATE INDEX accepts a 'WHERE' clause. This is used to create something called a partial index. Hmm, ever being one who sees the world as made of nails when first given a hammer ... One of our tables, with a couple hundred thousand rows) has a date-column index. We expire things out of the table every day (the vast majority, but not exclusively, stuff that's a couple days old). We're frequently running queries against the table, looking for everything since this time yesterday; we hardly ever look back more than 24 hours. If I created the index as something like: CREATE INDEX ix_foo ON foo(the_date) WHERE the_date = now() - interval '24 hours'; what might I expect as the impact? Do index values older than 24 hours drop out? Or must I refresh the index from time to time (in our application, probably a couple dozen times a day)? And, absent pat answers to this, is there anything out there in PG-land that documents partial indexes, and when to use them? -- Jeff Boes vox 269.226.9550 ext 24 Database Engineer fax 269.349.9076 Nexcerpt, Inc. http://www.nexcerpt.com ...Nexcerpt... Extend your Expertise ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [ADMIN] Report Generator Proposal
I rather like it actually. Cisco equipment has a 'show tech-support' command that does exactly that, dumps all the config, HW/SW versions, current state, you name it. If you have a problem you run that, attach the output to yr support email, and 99% of the time there's enough info there to solve the problem. It'd be easy to automate all except the explain, a script that did everything else could then emit If your preoblem relates to a specific query, then run 'explain analyze query' and attach it to your message as well. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gaetano Mendola Sent: 15 September 2003 16:25 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Report Generator Proposal Must I suppose that the idea rejected ? - Original Message - From: Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: comp.databases.postgresql.admin Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:52 PM Subject: Re: Report Generator Proposal Nobody entusiastic ? I'm wrong about my feeling ? I think that have the psql able to generate a report will increase the our better response to a user novice or not ? Regards Gaetano Mendola - Original Message - From: Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: comp.databases.postgresql.admin Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 4:10 AM Subject: Report Generator Proposal Hi all, each time that someone say: this query is slow, this query take forever, bla bla bla all our request are: 1) Which version are you running ? 2) May I see your table definition? 3) May I see you configuration file? 4) May I see the explain ? 5) ... sometimes a beginner is scared about all these questions and even he/she don't know how do collect these informations and we lose important data about: why that damn query is too slow? may be is usefull generate an automatic report that take charge of collect all these informations and send it to a file or directly to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , may be something like: BEGIN REPORT TO FILE file_name SELECT .. END REPORT; or BEGIN REPORT TO EMAIL address SELECT .. END REPORT; Regards Gaetano Mendola ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [ADMIN] pg 7.3.4 and linux box crash
It is crashing the linux box. Not rebooting, not kernel panic, but only stop to respond.On the console if I type reboot it will not to reboot and so on. But it crash only if I start intensive operations on pg. If you can type 'reboot' then surely it hasn't stopped responding? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
[ADMIN] Cost estimates consistently too high - does it matter?
Hi, I've noticed that the cost estimates for a lot of my queries are consistently far to high. Sometimes it's because the row estimates are wrong, like this: explain analyze select logtime from loginlog where uid='Ymogen::YM_User::3e2c0869c2fdd26d8a74d218d5a6ff585d490560' and result = 'Success' order by logtime desc limit 3;NOTICE: QUERY PLAN: Limit (cost=0.00..221.85 rows=3 width=8) (actual time=0.21..2.39 rows=3 loops=1) - Index Scan Backward using loginlog_logtime_idx on loginlog (cost=0.00..12846.69 rows=174 width=8) (actual time=0.20..2.37 rows=4 loops=1)Total runtime: 2.48 msec The row estimate here is off by a factor of 50, but the cost estimate is off by a factor of5000. Sometimes the row estimates are good, but the costs are still too high: explain analyze select u.email from ym_user u join mobilepm m on (m.ownerid = u._id) where m.status = 'Validated' and m.network = 'TMOBILEUK';NOTICE: QUERY PLAN: Nested Loop (cost=0.00..2569.13 rows=441 width=145) (actual time=1.93..248.57 rows=553 loops=1) - Seq Scan on mobilepm m (cost=0.00..795.11 rows=441 width=58) (actual time=1.69..132.83 rows=553 loops=1) - Index Scan using ym_user_id_idx on ym_user u (cost=0.00..4.01 rows=1 width=87) (actual time=0.19..0.20 rows=1 loops=553)Total runtime: 249.47 msec loginlog has 18 rows, mobilepm has 12000, ym_user has 5, and they've all been analyzed prior to running the query. The server is a Quad PIII 700 Xeon/1MB cache, 3GB RAM, hardware RAID10 ontwo SCSIchannels with 128MB write-back cache. I've lowered the random_page_cost to 2 to reflect the decent disk IO, but I suppose the fact that the DB indexes are essentially all cached in RAM might also be affecting the results, although effective_cache_size is set to a realistic 262144 (2GB). Those planner params in full: #effective_cache_size = 1000 # default in 8k pages#random_page_cost = 4#cpu_tuple_cost = 0.01#cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.001#cpu_operator_cost = 0.0025effective_cache_size = 262144 # 2GB of FS cacherandom_page_cost = 2 For now the planner seems to be making the right choices, but my concern is that at some point the planner might start making some bad decisions, especially on more complex queries. Should I bother tweaking the planner costs more, and if so which ones? Am I fretting over nothing? Cheers Matt Matt ClarkYmogen Ltd[EMAIL PROTECTED]corp.ymogen.net
[ADMIN] Transactions, tuples, and VACUUM
Morning all, bit of a general question here... consider: begin; update a set col1 = 'p' where id = '1'; update a set col2 = 'q' where id = '1'; commit; versus: update a set col1 = 'p', col2 = 'q' where id = '1'; Does the first case generate any more dead tuples that will need vacuuming than the second case, or are the two updates 'merged' when the transaction is committed? Or is the answer 'sometimes' (I would guess depending on checkpoints)? Cheers Matt ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [ADMIN] Cost estimates consistently too high - does it matter?
Well, I usually am under a misapprehension! Thanks for the explanation about LIMIT too. In that case then, I shall stop worrying and learn to love the planner. M -Original Message- From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 August 2003 16:15 To: Matt Clark Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Cost estimates consistently too high - does it matter? Matt Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've noticed that the cost estimates for a lot of my queries are consistently far to high. You seem to be under a misapprehension. The cost estimates are not in units of milliseconds, they are on an arbitrary scale with 1.0 defined as one disk fetch. LIMIT throws another monkey wrench into the mix: the estimates for the plan nodes underneath the limit are done as if the plan were to be executed to completion, which of course it won't be. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [ADMIN] Postgresql slow on XEON 2.4ghz/1gb ram
A P3 1GHz is probably roughly equivalent to a P4 1.5GHz, so going from dual P3 1GHz to single P4 2.4GHz would likely be slower in any case. Don't forget that unless you're talking about the "Xeon MP" then the whole "Xeon" tag is pretty meaningless for the P4 range. If you moved to a *dual* P4 setup, then the only obvious reason for a slowdown would be if the disk subsystem is much slower on the new machine, or the new machine has a hardware problem. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Wilson A. Galafassi Jr.Sent: 06 August 2003 14:21To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [ADMIN] Postgresql slow on XEON 2.4ghz/1gb ram Hello. I have this problem:i'm runningthe postgre 7.3on awindows 2000 serverwith P3 1GHZ DUAL/1gb ramwithgood performance.For bestperformancei have change the server for a XEON 2.4/1gb ram andformy suprisethe performance decrease 80%.anybody have a similar experience?does exist anyspecial configuration to postgre running on a Xeonprocessor? Any have any idea to help-me? Excuse-me my bad english. Very Thanks Wilson icq 77032308 msn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ADMIN] LVM snapshots
Thanks Murthy, that's exceptionally helpful! Does anyone know what (in general) would cause the notices that Murthy spotted in the logs as per the snippet below? The postmaster is started and stopped on the backup server, so that any problems can be identified right away. (Notice the ReadRecord: unexpected pageaddr 13C/98EDA000 in log file 317, segment 11, offset 15572992 in the later log. This seems to be a non-critical error; VACUUM ANALYZE gave a short series of: NOTICE: Rel table name: Uninitialized page 54300 - fixing ... VACUUM ). ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [ADMIN] LVM snapshots
Title: RE: [ADMIN] LVM snapshots Thanks all. The conclusion there seemed to be that it ought to work just fine, but should be tested. Well, I'll test it and see if anything interesting comes up. If anything LVM snapshots will be less tricky than NetApp snapshots as LVM has access to the OS's local cache buffers, whereas the NetApp doesn't (though presumably the OS shouldn't/doesn't do any write caching when writing to a network FS). -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Trewern, BenSent: 14 March 2003 17:55To: 'Matt Clark'Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [ADMIN] LVM snapshots Try - [GENERAL] A few questions to real pgsql gurus Ben
