Hey folks,
I'm running 8.0.4 on OpenBSD, and I'm running into issues where
a large batch job will fire up and occasionally coincide with a
VACUUM. Which then makes this batch take an hour and a half,
rather than the 30 minutes it usually takes. :(
I am going to upgrade to 8.1.2 this
If you have command string monitoring turned on, via
stats_command_string in the postgresql.conf file, then you could get
this information from the system view pg_stat_activity.
Generally, you could look to see if a current_query is a vacuum, perhaps
via...
select * from pg_stat_activity
Well, you have to turn on the stats collector, so you will pay a little
bit of a performance penalty for that. I doubt you'll notice it unless
you're really close to the edge. You do have to restart the database to
enable the stats collector if it's off. The pg_stat_activity stuff is
Hey folks,
I just had a copy-n-paste mishap on one of my databases, while
fixing the character conversion problem.
The following erroneous command was entered:
UPDATE pg_proc SET proacl = '{=}'
;
.. instead of the correct one (missing the WHERE clause). It
updated 1747 rows - oh
Always a good idea to do this kind of thing inside a BEGIN block ;-)
Yeah. That was the _second_ thing that came to mind. ;)
As far as the system functions are concerned, you can just set the
proacl column to NULL (ie, default) and that'll be fine for everything
except the character
No, there is not. Does anyone want to suggest a possible implementation
for the TODO list?
I would like to see a combination of number of login failures and a
timeout, configurable via the conf file. Say, X login failures
disables further logins for that account for Y minutes.
That would be
And dangerous. Imagine a system with say, apache accound used
from some Apache application. And a maluser who purposefully
tries to log in to apache account and fails, thus causing a DoS
on the web application. :)
Yes, I absolutely agree. Any scheme of the sort would have some
risks. And
Maybe it's exceeding a ulimit setting?
Bingo.
You might want to watch it with top and see what size the process
actually gets to before failing. I'm not sure how accurate the
vacuum_mem throttle is ...
It failed immediately upon invocation of vacuumdb.
I did find the problem and I feel
Hey folks,
I'm running 7.3.5 on an OpenBSD 3.5-STABLE machine, with 512M of RAM.
I'm running VACUUM ANALYZE every hour, with a VACUUM FULL once per night
before backups.
I'm trying to speed up the VACCUMs, so I tried bumping up vacuum_mem
in postgresql.conf from the default to 64M. This
The problem here isn't pg_autovacuum, but too small of settings for
fsm. I've run multi-day tests where autovacuum kept the size of the
database pretty much the same with 200+ updates a second going on.
Hi Scott,
Could you explain the fsm a little more? I have done _no_ tuning on
my
You might want to look into the autovacuum daemon, and / or increasing
fsm settings to be large enough to hold all the spare tuples released by
vacuuming.
IIRC, the autovacuum stuff was added in 7.4, which I'm not running (yet).
An upgrade to 7.4.3 might be prudent for me, while the database
Hey folks,
I am working on a rather small, simple database. I'm running 7.3.5 on
an OpenBSD 3.5-STABLE machine (1.3GHz, 512M RAM, IDE drive using UDMA-5).
I am parsing and storing emails, so I have a lot of character string
data to worry about. In one particular table, I have 26 columns
Were those fields populated just like the varchar fields? If not, then
the test proves little. If so, I find it hard to believe that char(x)
would be any faster than varchar. They're all handled about the same.
Hi Scott,
Yes, the new table was populated from the data from the original,
C. Bensend [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, I went ahead and created an exact copy of this table, with the
exception of creating all character columns as type char(), not
varchar().
I was pondering if making PostgreSQL worry about the varying lengths
by using varchar was the problem
Right. The only thing that will do for you is waste space with padding
blanks. The performance improvement you saw was due to something else,
which I theorize is not having to waste time reading dead space.
Since you obviously doubt this assertion, try the same experiment except
load the
I had setup my pg_hba.conf originally like this:
host all all 10.15.0.0 255.255.255.0 trust
I was under the impression that the .0 was supposed to be equivalent to
a wildcard entry so that any connection from 10.15 would be able to
connect. This was not so. By changing
I'm fairly sure that Oracle's pricing scales with the iron you plan to
use: the more or faster CPUs you want to run it on, the more you pay.
A large shop can easily get into the $100K license range, but Oracle
figures that they will have spent way more than that on their hardware.
Exactly
Hey folks,
I searched the archives and didn't really come up with much, so I'm
posting my question here.
I have two tables in the same database, whose structure I want to be
identical. Call them 'bob' and 'test_bob' for example.
If I make a change to the schema of 'bob', I want that
Possibly you could get the effect you want by making one a child of the
other. Read up on inheritance. There are some side-effects you'd
probably *not* want, so this isn't a perfect solution, but I can't think
of anything else.
Thanks for the quick reply, Tom. I appreciate that.
when you drop a column). This is NOT on the same level as a quick
DROP/CREATE.
Hi Reece,
My apologies to Tom - I certainly was not trying to disreguard or
blow off his advice. I think my lack of understanding may have
manifested itself as dismissal. I'm a systems/network guy, not a DBA
pg_dumpall seems to do this for me, without any command-line args
needed. Am I correct in saying that 'pg_dumpall filename' will
produce
a PostgreSQL dump that includes _everything_ I need to go from a clean
PG install to accepting connections again with data intact? Users,
passwords,
Hey folks,
I'm a systems/network guy and not a developer/DBA, FYI. I'm in the
process of redoing a personal, low-traffic website to use PHP and
PostgreSQL as a learning exercise. I've got all the code done and the
database is populated, so now I'm tying up the loose ends, namely backups.
I
Hey folks,
I just had a question or two on backups of a
production database I have just recently started people
using PostgreSQL, and it's gone very smoothly Tonight,
I installed and configured the PostgreSQL Backup Script
(http://databasesourceforgenet/indexphp?area=postgresql),
and
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Daniel Andersen wrote:
Does postgresql have any problems managing load? I'm running a medium sized
(30k customers) ISP off a postgresql database but it can't seem to manage
very well with the dozen or so requests per second it receives. The machine
we are handling is
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Chad R. Larson wrote:
etc. They should _only_ be able to add/alter/drop tables within their
_own_ database.
So, create a database for the user as the user, but deny him the ability to
create databases or users.
Then he can dick with his own database to his heart's
Hey folks,
I'm sorry to keep bombarding you folks with seemingly
simple questions, but PostgreSQL just doesn't seem to operate
in what _I_ think is a logical fashion (I == sysadmin, not DBA).
:(
The stats:
* PostgreSQL 7.1.2 server on OpenBSD 2.9
* PostgreSQL 7.1.2
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
See sameuser option in pg_hba.conf.
I have. See below.
hostssl bobsdba.b.c.d 255.255.255.255 crypt
This works fine, asks for a password, connects the user, and
then they can \c otherdb without any problem.
The above line does not
Sorry for the interruption into this discussion, but it
is very similar to the question I posted two weeks ago
(http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1027722).
I have since revised my ideas of how my databases should
be set up, ie:
* Users need to have superuser access to their
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Chris Cameron wrote:
Actually, that's my exact same problem AND setup.
Making a user that can create databases, but not users is a decent idea.
That's what I'll be doing for my more trusted users. However, beyond that
it looks like the only choice is to run multipule
Hey folks,
I'm hoping this question is suitable for this group.
I did do some archive searches on the PHP mailing lists, with
either no hits, or a billion.
My ultimate goal is to have all connections between
my webserver and the database server use SSL. I have both
the
Hello folks,
I want to state right off the bat that I _know_
these are very basic questions, and most can be answered
with an understanding of SQL. I am very new to databases,
but I am _not_ asking for answers. You folks have much
more important (or fun) things to do with your time.
Hello folks,
I am in the process of building out a new server
for my domains. I recently (last night) compiled Apache
1.3.19 + mod_perl + mod_ssl + PHP 4.0.4p1 + mm + PostgreSQL
7.0.3.
My question: I will be installing PostgreSQL on a
separate machine, and because of the
Hello folks,
Hopefully, this is the correct forum. I wasn't
entirely sure.
I'm trying to perfect a process for installing
Apache/PHP/OpenSSL/Mod_SSL on OpenBSD machines. This I
have done, and it works well. :) Yay.
I need to provide PostgreSQL support for this
33 matches
Mail list logo
