Yes, turning wal_compression off improves things. Slave that was mentioned
unfortunately lagged too much before this setting was applied and was
turned off. However the remaining slave lags less now, although still
occasionally up to a few minutes. I think single threadedness of recovery
is a big
Dinko Papak writes:
> Here are 3 interesting (to me) numbers:
> 1. creating index on expression (func(timestamp)) takes 5 seconds
> 2. creating check constraint on the same expression takes 10 seconds
> 3. adding partition table based on the same expression without check
> expression takes 20
Here are 3 interesting (to me) numbers:
1. creating index on expression (func(timestamp)) takes 5 seconds
2. creating check constraint on the same expression takes 10 seconds
3. adding partition table based on the same expression without check expression
takes 20 seconds (this has been
Hi,
On 2018-10-22 13:53:40 +, Scot Kreienkamp wrote:
> We just moved to PG9.6 from 9.1 (yeah, not my choice to wait this long). In
> 9.1 I had to make the archive location (NFS in my case) available to all the
> mirrors running PG so that they could catch up whenever they fell behind. I
I remember thinking it was pulling from archive with the restore command if
necessary to augment what it had on disk. If that was the case I wanted to
configure it. I don’t care for the replication slots due to the possible disk
space issue as we don’t run shifts around the clock. So I’ll
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 9:54 AM Scot Kreienkamp
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> We just moved to PG9.6 from 9.1 (yeah, not my choice to wait this long).
> In 9.1 I had to make the archive location (NFS in my case) available to all
> the mirrors running PG so that they could catch up whenever they
Dang, I thought that sounded too good to be true. Oh well.
Thanks for setting me straight.
Scot Kreienkamp |Senior Systems Engineer | La-Z-Boy Corporate
One La-Z-Boy Drive| Monroe, Michigan 48162 | Office: 734-384-6403 | | Mobile:
7349151444 | Email: scot.kreienk...@la-z-boy.com
From: Don
Am 22.10.2018 um 15:53 schrieb Scot Kreienkamp:
I thought I read somewhere that in 9.6, as long as the WAL log is
available on disk or in the archive the replication server will
provide that to the replication client, and my archive NFS mount
didn’t have to be available to all replication
GPT writes:
> Both PG versions 10.5 and 11 are installed.
> I have been trying to compile extensions for PG11 by using:
> PATH=/.../11/bin:PATH make USE_...
> but unfortunately PG10 is always being used (the `make` output always
> shows PG10 and refers to `pg_config`).
> 1) Does it have to do
On 10/22/18 6:53 AM, GPT wrote:
Unfortunately, I had not installed the following package:
"postgresql-server-dev-11"
By the way, shouldn't a warning message appear while trying to run:
`PATH=/usr/lib/postgresql/11/bin:$PATH make USE_PGXS=1`
warning the user that some files are missing.
>
> I thought I read somewhere that in 9.6, as long as the WAL log is
> available on disk or in the archive the replication server will provide
> that to the replication client, and my archive NFS mount didn’t have to be
> available to all replication clients.
>
Streaming replication will only
Hi everyone,
We just moved to PG9.6 from 9.1 (yeah, not my choice to wait this long). In
9.1 I had to make the archive location (NFS in my case) available to all the
mirrors running PG so that they could catch up whenever they fell behind. I
thought I read somewhere that in 9.6, as long as
Unfortunately, I had not installed the following package:
"postgresql-server-dev-11"
By the way, shouldn't a warning message appear while trying to run:
`PATH=/usr/lib/postgresql/11/bin:$PATH make USE_PGXS=1`
warning the user that some files are missing.
Tia
On 10/22/18, GPT wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi,
Both PG versions 10.5 and 11 are installed.
I have been trying to compile extensions for PG11 by using:
PATH=/.../11/bin:PATH make USE_...
but unfortunately PG10 is always being used (the `make` output always
shows PG10 and refers to `pg_config`).
1) Does it have to do with pg_config?
2)
> On 22 Oct 2018, at 7:56, aman gupta wrote:
>
> Issue:
>
> We have the base table which contains 22M records and we created a view on
> top of it while querying the view with ILIKE clause it took 44 seconds and
> with LIKE Clause 20 Seconds
>
> Query:
>
> fm_db_custom_db=# EXPLAIN
Hi
po 22. 10. 2018 v 7:57 odesílatel aman gupta napsal:
> Hi Team,
>
> Greetings for the day!!
>
> Platform:
>
> PostgreSQL 9.6.2 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.8.5
> 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-11), 64-bit
>
>
> Issue:
>
>
> We have the base table which contains 22M records and we
16 matches
Mail list logo
