On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 03:36:11PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "David Fetter" writes:
> >> > IF EXISTS (SELECT 1 INTO STRICT i) THEN
> >> > RAISE NOTICE '%', a;
> >> > END IF;
> >>
> >> Umm ... are you
I don't think we ever addressed this, but since we have had minimal
complaints about it, I guess we are OK.
---
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:04:57PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:1
I have applied the attached doc patch to document the problem with
relative paths and pg_ctl restart.
---
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:49:25PM -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page writes:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Seems pretty brute-force. Why not just
>>>
>>> #if LIBXML_VERSION > 20703
>>> #define HAVE_XMLSTRUCTUREDERRORCONTEXT
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> in some suitable place (probabl
wrote:
> In my live environment i have a table with a boolean where the
> boolean is usually true. The boolean is false on new or changed
> entrys and if i select the false-rows order by primary key i get
> slow querys. The table has a lot of million rows and a very small
> amount of rows with f
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> insert into bla ( a , b )
> select a , floor(random() * 100) 1
> from generate_series( 1 , 100 ) as a ( a ) ;
>
> On my machine, with that data, all of the queries run fast.
Yes, this runs by me fast too. But here is no relation
between a and b. By my dat
Hello John,
>> we see up to 10x performance increase with bigger shared_buffers in case
>> of this database. Main database entities are about 20GB in size and we see
>> that performance drops considerably when running with smaller
>> shared_buffers smaller then that.
>>
>>
> do you adjust effecti
Hello again,
now I have restarted the slave with shared_buffers set to 32GB, and now the
recovery process is at 100% CPU:
$ strace -c -f -p 27076
Process 27076 attached - interrupt to quit
Process 27076 detached
% time seconds usecs/call callserrors syscall
-- --- --
Hello Andreas,
here is the process, that now actually is not using CPU at all and the
shared_buffers are set to 2GB:
50978 postgres 20 0 2288m 2.0g 2.0g S 0.0 1.6 4225:34 postgres:
startup process recovering 0005262E00FD
It is hanging on that file for several minutes now.
a
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> insert into bla ( a , b )
> select a , floor(random() * 100) 1
> from generate_series( 1 , 100 ) as a ( a ) ;
>
> On my machine, with that data, all of the queries run fast.
Yes, this runs by me fast too. But here is no relation
between a and b. By my dat
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> insert into bla ( a , b )
> select a , floor(random() * 100) 1
> from generate_series( 1 , 100 ) as a ( a ) ;
>
> On my machine, with that data, all of the queries run fast.
Yes, this runs by me fast too. But here is no relation
between a and b. By my dat
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> insert into bla ( a , b )
> select a , floor(random() * 100) 1
> from generate_series( 1 , 100 ) as a ( a ) ;
>
> On my machine, with that data, all of the queries run fast.
Yes, this runs by me fast too. But here is no relation
between a and b. By my dat
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> insert into bla ( a , b )
> select a , floor(random() * 100) 1
> from generate_series( 1 , 100 ) as a ( a ) ;
>
> On my machine, with that data, all of the queries run fast.
Yes, this runs by me fast too. But here is no relation
between a and b. By my dat
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Dave Page writes:
>>> So Sachin and I have looked at this but not found a problem with the
>>> installers. He then found that one of our colleagues has already
>>> reported this as an issue wi
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
>> So Sachin and I have looked at this but not found a problem with the
>> installers. He then found that one of our colleagues has already
>> reported this as an issue with PostgreSQL and submitted a possible
>> patch. So, we n
Dave Page writes:
> So Sachin and I have looked at this but not found a problem with the
> installers. He then found that one of our colleagues has already
> reported this as an issue with PostgreSQL and submitted a possible
> patch. So, we need a committer to look at fixing this:
> http://archiv
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Rikard Pavelic
> wrote:
>> On 15.8.2012. 3:54, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> On 08/14/2012 11:42 PM, Rikard Pavelic wrote:
On 8.8.2012. 13:30, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 06:24 PM, rikard.pave...@zg.ht
On 15.08.2012 09:50, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 15.08.2012 01:02, Zdeněk Jílovec wrote:
Hello,
I use PostgreSQL 9.2beta3 with PostGIS 2.0.1 and if I try create GIST
index
on column geometry(Point,2065) I get error:
test=> CREATE INDEX places_point ON places USING GIST(def_point);
ERROR: fail
18 matches
Mail list logo
