Re: [GENERAL] Full text search on a complex schema - a classic problem?
On 05/23/10 18:03, Andy Colson wrote: On 05/22/2010 09:40 PM, Ivan Voras wrote: Hello, I have a schema which tracks various pieces of information which would need to be globally searchable. One approach I came up with to make all of the data searchable is to create a view made of UNION ALL queries that would integrate different tables into a common structure which could be uniformly queried by using tsearch2 functions. This would work, up to the point where it would be practically unavoidable (for performance reasons) to create indexes on this view, which cannot be done. I would like to avoid using a hand-made materialized view (via triggers, etc.) because of administrative overhead and because it would duplicate data, of which there is potentially a lot. I think this looks like a fairly common problem with full text searches on a large-ish schemas, so I'm wondering what are the best practices here, specifically with using tsearch2? I have something like this, but with PostGIS layers. When a person clicks I search all the different layers (each a table) for information. I use a stored proc. Each table has its own index so each table is fast. It also lets me abstract out differences between the layers (I can search each a little differently). If each of your tables had its own full text fields and indexes, then write a stored proc to search them all individually, it should be pretty quick. This looks like an interesting solution. And it could be done generically in our case by having a separate table describing which tables need to be searched and by what fields. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Full text search on a complex schema - a classic problem?
On 05/23/10 07:17, Craig Ringer wrote: On 23/05/10 10:40, Ivan Voras wrote: Hello, I have a schema which tracks various pieces of information which would need to be globally searchable. If systems that exist outside the database its self are acceptable, check out Apache Lucerne, and tools that use it like Hibernate Search. We are currently using such an external system and while it works fast enough it has two problems: 1) the need to periodically refresh it (via cron) 2) it complicates deployment a bit by adding dependencies so we're moving away from it. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] Apache authorization using postgres
Is this the latest on this subject? Re: Apache2 PostgreSQL http authentication • From: Jeffrey Brower Jeff(at)PointHere(dot)net • To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org • Subject: Re: Apache2 PostgreSQL http authentication • Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 20:29:27 -0400 First you need to make sure that the blastwave package for apache development is on your machine. Use the blastwave command: pkg-get -i apache2_devel This gives you the headers you are missing from the apache binary install (as well as loading the libtool etc that the apxs command will use. Now go to http://www.giuseppetanzilli.it/mod_auth_pgsql2/ and download the source. I put it in /Documents/mod_auth_pgsql2/mod_auth_pgsql-2.0.3 [snip] Thanks, John Gage -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] returning ref cursor
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Ravi Katkar ravi.kat...@infor.com wrote: Please let me know what’s wrong with below code create or replace FUNCTION test_call() RETURNS VOID AS $procedure$ DECLARE c_cursor REFCURSOR; give your cursor a name: c_cursor REFCURSOR default 'a_name'; this name is also how you will use the refcursor from non-plpgsql fetches later in the transaction if you needed to (in this case you would likely return the cursor name from the function). merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] can't install postgres 8.4 on windows 2003 server
Hi, When I try to install postgres 8.4 on windows server 2003, I get the following error: A non-fatal error occurred whilst loading database modules. Please check the installation logs in C:/docssetttings/user/local settings/temp for details. The log file doesn't have any error, but it looks like it stopped in the middle. Also, it doesn't install the postgres service. I have attached the log file. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. http://old.nabble.com/file/p28657511/bitrock_installer_1004serverlog.log bitrock_installer_1004serverlog.log -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/can%27t-install-postgres-8.4-on-windows-2003-server-tp28657511p28657511.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] cleaning wal files from postgres
oops, sorry, my question was very ambiguous ... What I want to know is: The correct procedure to remove the wal files that have been used in the recovery of a postgres server. Consider the following; 1.- A main server in production. 2.- A secondary server that is normally off. 3.- By connecting the secondary server, the primary server must copy the directory data as well as wal files generated during the copying process. 4.- start up the postgres on the secondary server. 5o.Delete wal files no longer will be used by postgres to save disk space. how can i know which wal file is not required by postgres and delete wal files from main and secondary server, to save space disk on the servers ? (after a succesfully start up on secondary server) regards eddie. On 05/21/2010 03:43 PM, Andreas Schmitz wrote: maybe I don't understand the problem. there is no need to clean WAL files after recovery. where exactly is the problem ? regards andreas erobles wrote: PITR recovery On 05/21/2010 03:04 PM, Andreas Schmitz wrote: erobles wrote: which is the right procedure to clean wal files after a recovery ?? what kind of recovery ? regards andreas -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] ROLLBACK in a function
Craig ~
Your rollback solution works! For anyone who wants to use Craig's solution,
the new version of my example (with the test code omitted to clarify the
structural pattern) is:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION tests() RETURNS varchar AS
$BODY$
DECLARE
errs VARCHAR = '';
-- Test declarations: omitted
BEGIN
-- Test code: omitted
RAISE EXCEPTION '';
EXCEPTION
WHEN raise_exception THEN
RETURN errs;
END;
$BODY$
LANGUAGE plpgsql VOLATILE
;
By contrast, the old version (with the test code omitted) was:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION tests() RETURNS varchar AS
$BODY$
DECLARE
errs VARCHAR = '';
-- Test declarations: omitted
BEGIN
RAISE EXCEPTION '';
EXCEPTION
WHEN raise_exception THEN
-- Test code: omitted
RETURN errs;
END;
$BODY$
LANGUAGE plpgsql VOLATILE
;
To clarify the purpose of this structure, for anyone who may want to do the
same thing:
This is a framework for running test code whose job is to run one or more
tests against the database. Every test that fails is supposed to simply add
a diagnostic message to the errs string, which is then returned. Every
test that is passed is to do nothing. All tests need to be designed so that
they do not cause an exception that causes the function to abort. And then,
at the end, the framework of the function returns errs and rolls back all
data changes it has made.
~ Thanks!
~ Ken
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-
ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Craig Ringer
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 8:48 PM
To: Ken Winter
Cc: PostgreSQL pg-general List
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] ROLLBACK in a function
On 24/05/10 02:51, Ken Winter wrote:
How can I write a PL/PgSQL function that rolls back every database
change it has done?
Have it raise an exception, causing the surrounding transaction to
terminate with an error.
Another function calling yours can still catch the exception and handle
it, so it's possible for your function's changes to be applied, but only
if someone explicitly and intentionally catches and ignores the error.
BEGIN
RAISE EXCEPTION '';
EXCEPTION
WHEN raise_exception THEN
SET search_path TO public, tests;
-- Test code:
SELECT count(*) INTO old_count FROM person_i;
INSERT INTO person (last_name) VALUES ('_test');
SELECT count(*) INTO new_count FROM person_i;
IF NOT new_count = old_count + 1 THEN
errs := errs || ': Failed to insert into ''person''';
END IF;
The function runs OK, but it does not roll back the actions it did (in
this case, the INSERT).
You're on the right track, but you've got the code that changes the
database in the exception handler _after_ the exception is thrown.
You want it in the BEGIN block _before_ the exception is thrown.
However, you're also doing this quite an expensive way.
An INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE can only fail to have any effect without
throwing an exception if if has a WHERE clause, is intercepted by a
BEFORE trigger that returns NULL, or is rewritten by a rule. If none of
those are possible, your INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE is guaranteed to work or
throw an exception.
eg (untested code, please verify before relying on it):
BEGIN
SELECT count(*) INTO old_count FROM person_i;
INSERT INTO person (last_name) VALUES ('_test');
SELECT count(*) INTO new_count FROM person_i;
IF NOT old_count + 1 = new_count THEN
RAISE EXCEPTION 'Update failed';
END IF;
EXCEPTION WHEN raise_exception THEN
errs := errs || ': Failed to insert into ''person''';
END;
But ... please consider whether you really need this check with two
expensive count(*) queries. Unless you're using BEFORE triggers that
return NULL or rewrite rules, you can trust that an INSERT without a
WHERE clause will always succeed or throw an exception.
If you *are* using triggers or rules, you should be able to use GET
DIAGNOSTICS to see the affected row count, saving yourself those
count(*) queries. See:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plpgsql-
statements.html#PLPGSQL-STATEMENTS-DIAGNOSTICS
eg (untested code, should give you the idea):
DECLARE
rowcount INTEGER;
BEGIN
-- function body here
BEGIN
INSERT INTO person (last_name) VALUES ('_test');
GET DIAGNOSTICS rowcount = ROW_COUNT;
IF NOT rowcount = 1 THEN
RAISE EXCEPTION 'Update failed';
END IF;
EXCEPTION WHEN raise_exception THEN
errs := errs || ': Failed to insert into ''person''';
END;
END;
You *can* trick Pg into not seeing that an update has happened even when
it really has. For example, a BEFORE trigger can do its own INSERT then
return NULL to tell Pg to ignore the INSERT that invoked the trigger.
Stored functions that do INSERTs don't set the rowcount either. If
you're not doing anything like that,
Re: [GENERAL] can't install postgres 8.4 on windows 2003 server
On 5/24/10 7:52 PM, ritas wrote: Hi, When I try to install postgres 8.4 on windows server 2003, I get the following error: A non-fatal error occurred whilst loading database modules. Please check the installation logs in C:/docssetttings/user/local settings/temp for details. The log file doesn't have any error, but it looks like it stopped in the middle. Also, it doesn't install the postgres service. I have attached the log file. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. http://old.nabble.com/file/p28657511/bitrock_installer_1004serverlog.log bitrock_installer_1004serverlog.log There must be a log file with name install-postgresql.log in the %TEMP% directory. -- Regards, Sachin Srivastava EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com, the Enterprise Postgres http://www.enterprisedb.com company.
Re: [GENERAL] can't install postgres 8.4 on windows 2003 server
Thanks Sachin for your response. I have attached the install-postgresql.log. Also, if it helps, I have the following error in my event viewer: pg_ctl: could not register service postgresql-8.4: error code 0 The postgres service is not listed under services. Thanks. http://old.nabble.com/file/p28660078/install-postgresql.log install-postgresql.log Sachin Srivastava-2 wrote: On 5/24/10 7:52 PM, ritas wrote: Hi, When I try to install postgres 8.4 on windows server 2003, I get the following error: A non-fatal error occurred whilst loading database modules. Please check the installation logs in C:/docssetttings/user/local settings/temp for details. The log file doesn't have any error, but it looks like it stopped in the middle. Also, it doesn't install the postgres service. I have attached the log file. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. http://old.nabble.com/file/p28657511/bitrock_installer_1004serverlog.log bitrock_installer_1004serverlog.log There must be a log file with name install-postgresql.log in the %TEMP% directory. -- Regards, Sachin Srivastava EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com, the Enterprise Postgres http://www.enterprisedb.com company. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/can%27t-install-postgres-8.4-on-windows-2003-server-tp28657511p28660078.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] Hiding data in postgresql
Hi guys, does ANYONE have any tips on hiding data on a database server? This means that data is stored in places that is not necessarily picked up in the schema of the database. I am doing some research on databases and need some direction. Any help or direction will be highly appreciated. Kind regards Hector
Re: [GENERAL] Hiding data in postgresql
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Hector Beyers hqbey...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, does ANYONE have any tips on hiding data on a database server? This means that data is stored in places that is not necessarily picked up in the schema of the database. I am doing some research on databases and need some direction. Any help or direction will be highly appreciated. Let me guess: an attempt at security by obscurity? I suppose you could always create a couple of columns such that some function applied over them produced the real result (. You could even actually store this in an index, so although you could never see the result directly (except in a dump) queries to get at it might perform half reasonably. -- Peter Hunsberger -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Hiding data in postgresql
On 24 May 2010 20:16, Hector Beyers hqbey...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, does ANYONE have any tips on hiding data on a database server? This means that data is stored in places that is not necessarily picked up in the schema of the database. I am doing some research on databases and need some direction. Any help or direction will be highly appreciated. Kind regards Hector Why don't role permissions do what you need? Thom -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Hiding data in postgresql
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Hector Beyers hqbey...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, does ANYONE have any tips on hiding data on a database server? This means that data is stored in places that is not necessarily picked up in the schema of the database. I am doing some research on databases and need some direction. Uhhh, initdb -D /dev/null ??? -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Hiding data in postgresql
In response to Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Hector Beyers hqbey...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, does ANYONE have any tips on hiding data on a database server? This means that data is stored in places that is not necessarily picked up in the schema of the database. I am doing some research on databases and need some direction. On a more serious note, I would think the only way to do that would be to have columns that are misnamed and don't do what you expect. For example, have an image column that stores image data with your secret data hidden via steganography. You could do something similar with some scheme to hide data in text fields or numeric fields, but I don't know of any specific technique. Assuming you mean _hide_ and not _secure_. To secure it, encrypt it (using something like pgcrypto). But in the schema? I doubt it. PG's data storage is pretty transparent, you'd probably have to hack the source to pull that off. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Hiding data in postgresql
Wow, this is really an idea I can work with. I know this is getting really brainstorming, but do you think it is possible to apply steganography (hiding data in pictures) tactics to the columns of a database? Regards Hector On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Peter Hunsberger peter.hunsber...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Hector Beyers hqbey...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, does ANYONE have any tips on hiding data on a database server? This means that data is stored in places that is not necessarily picked up in the schema of the database. I am doing some research on databases and need some direction. Any help or direction will be highly appreciated. Let me guess: an attempt at security by obscurity? I suppose you could always create a couple of columns such that some function applied over them produced the real result (. You could even actually store this in an index, so although you could never see the result directly (except in a dump) queries to get at it might perform half reasonably. -- Peter Hunsberger
Re: [GENERAL] Hiding data in postgresql
Yes, I mean hide. I am approaching the problem out of the perspective of a malicious user / hacker. On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Bill Moran wmo...@potentialtech.comwrote: In response to Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Hector Beyers hqbey...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, does ANYONE have any tips on hiding data on a database server? This means that data is stored in places that is not necessarily picked up in the schema of the database. I am doing some research on databases and need some direction. On a more serious note, I would think the only way to do that would be to have columns that are misnamed and don't do what you expect. For example, have an image column that stores image data with your secret data hidden via steganography. You could do something similar with some scheme to hide data in text fields or numeric fields, but I don't know of any specific technique. Assuming you mean _hide_ and not _secure_. To secure it, encrypt it (using something like pgcrypto). But in the schema? I doubt it. PG's data storage is pretty transparent, you'd probably have to hack the source to pull that off. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/
Re: [GENERAL] Hiding data in postgresql
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Hector Beyers hqbey...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, this is really an idea I can work with. I know this is getting really brainstorming, but do you think it is possible to apply steganography (hiding data in pictures) tactics to the columns of a database? If by that, you mean a variation on my original reply, then yes, but you'd need at least one column that did not necessarily have contents that looked like normal text. This column would work as some form of offset pointer into the other columns. The result wouldn't necessarily require much in the way of a reconstruction algorithm, but if not it would likely also be fairly easy to figure out if someone stumbled across your scheme. If you want the truly secure variation on this then use some public key / private key scheme in conjunction with this (in particular, ECC could be pretty fast and have a small key size), so that some portion of this is encrypted. However, if you're doing that, you might as well just encrypt the data directly... -- Peter Hunsberger -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Hiding data in postgresql
Dear Peter, can you elaborate on what you mean by storing 'this' in the index. Are you referring to the function that is applied over the data? How would you be able to see the result with a dump? Thanks, your ideas are really helping... Regards Hector On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Peter Hunsberger peter.hunsber...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Hector Beyers hqbey...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, does ANYONE have any tips on hiding data on a database server? This means that data is stored in places that is not necessarily picked up in the schema of the database. I am doing some research on databases and need some direction. Any help or direction will be highly appreciated. Let me guess: an attempt at security by obscurity? I suppose you could always create a couple of columns such that some function applied over them produced the real result (. You could even actually store this in an index, so although you could never see the result directly (except in a dump) queries to get at it might perform half reasonably. -- Peter Hunsberger
Re: [GENERAL] Hiding data in postgresql
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Hector Beyers hqbey...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Peter, can you elaborate on what you mean by storing 'this' in the index. Are you referring to the function that is applied over the data? How would you be able to see the result with a dump? Yes, you would the function to create the index, something like: create index gunk on tbl1 ( hidefunc( a, b, c ) ) The data created in this index might be viewable in a database dump by simple inspection with something like an editor. How meaningful it might be is another question... -- Peter Hunsberger -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Hiding data in postgresql
Acutally, that's probably the best way to this. The key to effective steganography is having a large amount of data to store a small amount of data. So, if you don't mind having a db that's 10 to 100 times bigger than it has to be to store the original data it should work. On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Hector Beyers hqbey...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, this is really an idea I can work with. I know this is getting really brainstorming, but do you think it is possible to apply steganography (hiding data in pictures) tactics to the columns of a database? Regards Hector On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Peter Hunsberger peter.hunsber...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Hector Beyers hqbey...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, does ANYONE have any tips on hiding data on a database server? This means that data is stored in places that is not necessarily picked up in the schema of the database. I am doing some research on databases and need some direction. Any help or direction will be highly appreciated. Let me guess: an attempt at security by obscurity? I suppose you could always create a couple of columns such that some function applied over them produced the real result (. You could even actually store this in an index, so although you could never see the result directly (except in a dump) queries to get at it might perform half reasonably. -- Peter Hunsberger -- When fascism comes to America, it will be intolerance sold as diversity. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Hiding data in postgresql
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Hector Beyers hqbey...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, does ANYONE have any tips on hiding data on a database server? This means that data is stored in places that is not necessarily picked up in the schema of the database. I am doing some research on databases and need some direction. Any help or direction will be highly appreciated. First question: Have you considered 1. encrypting data when you put it in the database and 2. decrypting it when you pull it out? Let me humbly state that the #1 problem that beginners face with security and encryption is focusing too much on the mechanics and not enough on the 'big picture' issues: *) What data is to remain secret? *) Who is allowed to see the secret data? *) When do they see it? *) What sacrifices are you willing to make to keep the data secret? *) Where are you going to store the key? Answers to those questions should get you more helpful answers. Postgres has a lot of features to hide data, some obvious (pgcrypto, grant/revoke) and some not so obvious (revoking permissions from pg_proc). Judging from your question you may be interested in some extra-special techniques...please be more specific! merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] timestamp configuration
is there anyway with a running instance of postgres to find out if it was compiled with: BIGINT vs DOUBLE PRECISION timestamps? Dennis Gearon Signature Warning EARTH has a Right To Life, otherwise we all die. Read 'Hot, Flat, and Crowded' Laugh at http://www.yert.com/film.php -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] timestamp configuration
2010/5/25 Dennis Gearon gear...@sbcglobal.net: is there anyway with a running instance of postgres to find out if it was compiled with: BIGINT vs DOUBLE PRECISION timestamps? SHOW INTEGER_DATETIMES; Osvaldo -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] cleaning wal files from postgres
Hello. When you execute pg_stop_backup,postgresql makes a special file, like this 00010015.0064.backup. This means you can delete wal 00010014 and before. The PostgreSQL manual also says following. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/continuous-archiving.html#BACKUP-ARCHIVING-WAL 24.3.2. Making a Base Backup To make use of the backup, you will need to keep around all the WAL segment files generated during and after the file system backup. To aid you in doing this, the pg_stop_backup function creates a backup history file that is immediately stored into the WAL archive area. This file is named after the first WAL segment file that you need to have to make use of the backup. For example, if the starting WAL file is 0001123455CD the backup history file will be named something like 0001123455CD.007C9330.backup. (The second part of the file name stands for an exact position within the WAL file, and can ordinarily be ignored.) Once you have safely archived the file system backup and the WAL segment files used during the backup (as specified in the backup history file), all archived WAL segments with names numerically less are no longer needed to recover the file system backup and can be deleted. However, you should consider keeping several backup sets to be absolutely certain that you can recover your data. Thank you. oops, sorry, my question was very ambiguous ... What I want to know is: The correct procedure to remove the wal files that have been used in the recovery of a postgres server. Consider the following; 1.- A main server in production. 2.- A secondary server that is normally off. 3.- By connecting the secondary server, the primary server must copy the directory data as well as wal files generated during the copying process. 4.- start up the postgres on the secondary server. 5o.Delete wal files no longer will be used by postgres to save disk space. how can i know which wal file is not required by postgres and delete wal files from main and secondary server, to save space disk on the servers ? (after a succesfully start up on secondary server) regards eddie. On 05/21/2010 03:43 PM, Andreas Schmitz wrote: maybe I don't understand the problem. there is no need to clean WAL files after recovery. where exactly is the problem ? regards andreas erobles wrote: PITR recovery On 05/21/2010 03:04 PM, Andreas Schmitz wrote: erobles wrote: which is the right procedure to clean wal files after a recovery ?? what kind of recovery ? regards andreas -- Kenichiro Tanaka K.K.Ashisuto http://www.ashisuto.co.jp/english/index.html -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] timestamp configuration
for those walking up to a new server and who want to know the same information: shell script invoked by: script_filename database user #!/bin/sh psql -c show INTEGER_DATETIMES; -d $1 -U $2 -W Dennis Gearon Signature Warning EARTH has a Right To Life, otherwise we all die. Read 'Hot, Flat, and Crowded' Laugh at http://www.yert.com/film.php --- On Mon, 5/24/10, Osvaldo Kussama osvaldo.kuss...@gmail.com wrote: From: Osvaldo Kussama osvaldo.kuss...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [GENERAL] timestamp configuration To: Dennis Gearon gear...@sbcglobal.net Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 9:02 PM 2010/5/25 Dennis Gearon gear...@sbcglobal.net: is there anyway with a running instance of postgres to find out if it was compiled with: BIGINT vs DOUBLE PRECISION timestamps? SHOW INTEGER_DATETIMES; Osvaldo -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
