Le 2010-04-19 08:59, Alexandre Leclerc a écrit :
Le 2010-04-16 19:19, Scott Marlowe a écrit :
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Alexandre Leclerc
wrote:
Thank you guys. I wanted to rush and vacuum the other tables and
try, but I
decided to make a copy. This is actually running. (Enough
Le 2010-04-16 19:19, Scott Marlowe a écrit :
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Alexandre Leclerc wrote:
Thank you guys. I wanted to rush and vacuum the other tables and try, but I
decided to make a copy. This is actually running. (Enough mistakes in one
day to not take the time to do it
Le 2010-04-16 16:14, Tom Lane a écrit :
Alexandre Leclerc writes:
The vacuum raised a "max_fsm_pages" of 142000 not enought and stopped.
That's just a warning that gets put out at the end of the run. Go on
with vacuuming your other databases. Right now is no time
start over from the backup.
Also, the
"full-database vacuum" terminology seems too likely to be
interpreted as VACUUM FULL for best results. Perhaps it's worth
changing that to just "database vacuum" or "vacuum of the entire
database"?
We did change tha
Le 2010-04-16 15:20, Scott Marlowe a écrit :
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Alexandre Leclerc wrote:
Le 2010-04-16 14:18, Kevin Grittner a écrit :
Alexandre Leclercwrote:
At some point I got:
ERROR: xlog flush request AC/FBEEF148 is not satisfied --- flushed
only
Le 2010-04-16 14:18, Kevin Grittner a écrit :
Alexandre Leclerc wrote:
At some point I got:
ERROR: xlog flush request AC/FBEEF148 is not satisfied --- flushed
only to AC/FB9224A8
CONTEXT: writing block 0 of relation 1664/0/1214
WARNING: could not writing block 0 of 1664/0/1214
DETAIL
res.exe" would have "done" (like
listening to a port?).
(And by the way, what is the command to quit the backend? I'm doing
Ctrl+C but the DB does not like that...)
Best regards,
Alexandre Leclerc
Le 2010-04-16 10:46, Tom Lane a écrit :
Alexandre Leclerc writes:
*Bac
directly to the other under windows... I don't know about the | command
under "windows cmd".)
Thank you for your help.
Le 2010-04-16 10:46, Tom Lane a écrit :
Alexandre Leclerc writes:
*Background:*
- PostgreSQL 8.1 on Windows Server
- The customer has disabled regula
tion.
Being very grateful for your help,
--
Alexandre Leclerc
01-17 8h40 d1
I don't know why, this is like if the 'time' varchar was trimmed then
used for the ordering.
How can I fix that so that the result is exactly like the first one but
perfectly reversed in it's order?
Best regards.
--
Alexandre Leclerc
---
By the way, I think the "performance" mailling list would be the ideal
place to post you question since it is all about optimisation (and not
management).
Best regards.
--
Alexandre Leclerc
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you se
called internally if not by the coder; it
is good practice to call them. It does optimize the speed.
--
Alexandre Leclerc
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
t could be confirmed or not by someone else which knows
more about PG internals.
Best regards.
--
Alexandre Leclerc
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
hat it worth any-way.
I don't know what I'm missing.
Regards.
--
Alexandre Leclerc
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
14 matches
Mail list logo
