I am attempting to build several indexes in parallel, guaranteeing that I
never build one on the same table twice. I understand I can't build two on
the same table at once or I will get a deadlock. However, I am also
getting a deadlock when doing several in parallel on different tables.
Here is
On 12/22/2017 11:20 AM, hmidi slim wrote:
But is it possible to make simultanoues select queries from the same
connection?
Yes but it will happen serially.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and deve
Posting here because it seems the pgsql-pkg-debian list is not very
responsive.
This recent package appears to be broken for pgq3, used for Skytools
replication:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E1eR2Lv-0003h7-FC@
atalia.postgresql.org
There is no pgq_node.control file (postgresql-9.6-pgq3),
>Please DO NOT use EMUMs. That is old. They are hard to maintain. I also
>know from experience that MySql does not check
>integrity of enums. It's possible you can have data in a MySql table
>column
>that is not valid for current enum constraint on that column.
>EG: When porting, the enum for a co
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Poty wrote:
> Actually, We are migrating from Mysql to postgresql and we have to replace
> sets of Mysql. The migration we will be done in 2 steps: First, in a like
> for like way. Second step will be using postgresql powerfulness
>
> I think the most like
Actually, We are migrating from Mysql to postgresql and we have to replace
sets of Mysql. The migration we will be done in 2 steps: First, in a like
for like way. Second step will be using postgresql powerfulness
I think the most like for like way to migrate sets is using enum array.
Thank you A
Connections are synchronous. You can have multiple connections to the database
at a time.
Jim
On December 22, 2017 2:20:03 PM EST, hmidi slim wrote:
>But is it possible to make simultanoues select queries from the same
>connection?
>
>2017-12-22 20:00 GMT+01:00 Andreas Kretschmer
>:
>
>> On 22
On 22 December 2017 20:02:43 CET, Thomas Poty wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>I use postgresql 9.5 and I am looking for way to have a column which is
>an
>array of a foreign key. If what I read is correct it is currently not
>possible... Have you any idea how to implement this feature in a safe
>way
Normal
But is it possible to make simultanoues select queries from the same
connection?
2017-12-22 20:00 GMT+01:00 Andreas Kretschmer :
> On 22 December 2017 19:53:03 CET, hmidi slim
> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >I don't know if is it the suitable place to ask my question but I want
> >to
> >know if a table in a
Hi
On 22 Dec 2017 6:53 pm, "hmidi slim" wrote:
> Hi,
> I don't know if is it the suitable place to ask my question but I want to
> know if a table in a postgres database enable multiple reading actions for
> mayn rxjs observbles or not.
> I create two observables that need to access the same tab
Hello all,
I use postgresql 9.5 and I am looking for way to have a column which is an
array of a foreign key. If what I read is correct it is currently not
possible... Have you any idea how to implement this feature in a safe way
(foreign key constraints) ?
I don't have another idea to have a enum
On 22 December 2017 19:53:03 CET, hmidi slim wrote:
>Hi,
>I don't know if is it the suitable place to ask my question but I want
>to
>know if a table in a postgres database enable multiple reading actions
>for
>mayn rxjs observbles or not.
Not sure if i understand your question. But for sure PG i
Hi,
I don't know if is it the suitable place to ask my question but I want to
know if a table in a postgres database enable multiple reading actions for
mayn rxjs observbles or not.
I create two observables that need to access the same table simultanously
to get data, but I found that only one of t
No, it is a normal table.
*Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter*
/SimKorp Ltda/
Fone: (51) 3366-7964
Embedded Image
/"A mente que se abre a uma nova ideia jamais voltará ao seu tamanho
original"/
- Albert Einstein
Em 22/12/2017 11:42, Stephen Frost escreveu:
Greetings,
* Edson Carlos Ericksson
On 12/19/17, 11:16 AM, "Rakesh Kumar" wrote:
Has AWS Aurora started supporting PG 10. Their website still talks about
9.6.
Thanks
We are working to add support for PostgreSQL 10 for both Aurora PostgreSQL and
RDS for PostgreSQL. We don’t have a specific date to communicate;
I wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
>> How about just erroring out?
> Hm, yeah, inserting a FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED error might be an
> appropriate amount of effort.
When I looked into this more closely, it turns out that in v10/HEAD
it takes less code to fix it than to throw an error ;-). So
Here's the prompt response I got from the maintainer of FreeBSD package,
girgen@
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: pg_upgrading to 10.1 breaks some indices maybe due to
changing providers for ICU
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 17:44:41 +0100
From: Palle Girgensohn
To: rihad
Here's the prompt response I got from the maintainer of FreeBSD package,
girgen@
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: pg_upgrading to 10.1 breaks some indices maybe due to
changing providers for ICU
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 17:44:41 +0100
From: Palle Girgensohn
To: rihad
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 4:16 PM, rihad wrote:
> You mean they would have to bring back ICU support as an option? Ok, I'll
> try to report the problem.
The FreeBSD package previously contained a hacked-in ICU library,
meaning that the version of Postgres shipped with FreeBSD was
technically a fork
On 12/22/2017 08:07 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Please report this as a bug to the freebsd package maintainer.
You mean they would have to bring back ICU support as an option? Ok,
I'll try to report the problem.
Please report this as a bug to the freebsd package maintainer.
--
Peter Geoghegan
(Sent from my phone)
On 12/22/2017 07:43 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I have no idea. Maybe something to do with not actually using the same
collation provider?
The freebsd package contains modifications to make icu work, or at
least did. Possibly, you just stopped using the same collation
provider, without even re
I have no idea. Maybe something to do with not actually using the same
collation provider?
The freebsd package contains modifications to make icu work, or at least
did. Possibly, you just stopped using the same collation provider, without
even realizing it, because they switched over to a new prov
I wonder why the errors don't show up under 9.6.6 and only started
appearing after the pg_upgrade to 10.1?
Both severs naturally used the same OS environment.
Ken Tanzer writes:
> I noticed I get this behavior in 9.6, but in 9.2 an empty select results in
> a syntax error. Which just got me curious what caused the change, if it
> was deliberate, and if one or the other is more proper behavior.
Yes, it was an intentional change, see
https://git.postgre
On 12/22/2017 07:01 PM, rihad wrote:
[snip]
foo=# select bt_index_check('index_users_on_email_and_type');
ERROR: item order invariant violated for index
"index_users_on_email_and_type"
DETAIL: Lower index tid=(3,25) (points to index tid=(26,1)) higher
index tid=(3,26) (points to index tid=(27
On 12/22/2017 05:32 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 11:56 AM, rihad wrote:
I forgot to mention the real problem: the mentioned unique constraint didn't
work and allowed duplicate rows to get inserted into the table until the
duplicates were manually removed the the index was
rihad wrote:
> On 12/22/2017 05:09 PM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > rihad wrote:
> > > Hi there, this is a reproducible error. We recently pg_upgraded our
> > > production database to 10.1 from 9.6.6. The upgrade runs fine with the
> > > suggestion to analyze all data.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Trying t
On 12/22/2017 05:09 PM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
rihad wrote:
Hi there, this is a reproducible error. We recently pg_upgraded our
production database to 10.1 from 9.6.6. The upgrade runs fine with the
suggestion to analyze all data.
[...]
Trying to find data using the specified indices fails to fi
On 12/22/2017 05:09 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
What platform are you on
FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE-p26 amd64
, how was PostgreSQL installed
pkg install.
Additionally, 10.1 needed for pg_upgrade to run was installed using
portmaster -m PREFIX=/10.1, because FreeBSD doesn't allow more than one
maj
Hi,
I have postgres 9.4 standby with archive-based replication (via
restore_command).
PostgreSQL 9.4.12 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (Debian
4.9.2-10) 4.9.2, 64-bit
One day I noticed strange behavior in postgres logs: the same WAL has been
restored many times:
"restored log fi
Greetings,
* Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter (rich...@simkorp.com.br) wrote:
> I was testing our database backup system (based on pgBarman), and
> discovered that one base file is corrupt in our standby database
> server. The file is OK in master server, but has 0 bytes in size in
> standby server.
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 11:56 AM, rihad wrote:
> I forgot to mention the real problem: the mentioned unique constraint didn't
> work and allowed duplicate rows to get inserted into the table until the
> duplicates were manually removed the the index was rebuilt.
You should run amcheck functions o
Environment: PostgreSQL 9.6.6 installed from yum repository. Oracle
Linux 7 EL x64. Dell servers with Raid 5 (hw).
I was testing our database backup system (based on pgBarman), and
discovered that one base file is corrupt in our standby database server.
The file is OK in master server, but ha
rihad wrote:
> Hi there, this is a reproducible error. We recently pg_upgraded our
> production database to 10.1 from 9.6.6. The upgrade runs fine with the
> suggestion to analyze all data.
[...]
> Trying to find data using the specified indices fails to find matching rows:
[...]
> reindexing
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 12:53 PM, rihad wrote:
> Hi there, this is a reproducible error. We recently pg_upgraded our
> production database to 10.1 from 9.6.6. The upgrade runs fine with the
> suggestion to analyze all data.
>
> [rihad@postgres-10-test]$ cat analyze_new_cluster.sh
> #!/bin/sh
>
>
I forgot to mention the real problem: the mentioned unique constraint
didn't work and allowed duplicate rows to get inserted into the table
until the duplicates were manually removed the the index was rebuilt.
Hi there, this is a reproducible error. We recently pg_upgraded our
production database to 10.1 from 9.6.6. The upgrade runs fine with the
suggestion to analyze all data.
[rihad@postgres-10-test]$ cat analyze_new_cluster.sh
#!/bin/sh
echo 'This script will generate minimal optimizer statistics
Hello,
I am using following:
Windows PC (WIN1254 Turkish locale): PostgreSQL 10.1, compiled by Visual C++
build 1800, 64-bit (initdb complete with UTF8 Turkish locale)
Raspberry Pi 3(us_US.UTF8 locale): PostgreSQL 9.6.6 on
armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf, compiled by gcc (Raspbian 6.3.0-18+rpi1)
6.
2017-12-21 21:50 GMT+01:00 Rakesh Kumar :
> whenever SQLERROR EXIT ROLLBACK
>
Thanks. You are absolutely right.
After starting with:
WHENEVER SQLERROR EXIT ROLLBACK
the process getting the deadlock will exit to command prompt (with
%ERRORLEVEL% = 0).
So what actually found out was that Oracle
40 matches
Mail list logo
