> 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
>
> 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_ac
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 week
> 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 co
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 crap
> 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.
> 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 b
> 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 f
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 r
> 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 d
> By the way, be carefull. The pg_autovacuum is not good enough for being
> using as the only way for cleaning the database, especially if you have a
> lot of update and delete on the same tables.
For right now, I'm just vacuuming more often to see how things go. I
didn't think I was even genera
> 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 databas
> 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
> "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
> 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 origina
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
> 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 c
> 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
> 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
> 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.
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 e
>> 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,
>>
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 am
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://database.sourceforge.net/index.php?area=postgresql)
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 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 lin
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 clie
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 h
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> > * Users need to have superuser access to their OWN
> > databases
> > * Users should not have the ability to create users
> > or databases
> > * Users _need_ to be able to create tables, modify
> > tables, drop tables, etc
>
>
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 multipu
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 O
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 database
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 timel
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
webse
35 matches
Mail list logo
