Thanks guys. VERY informative. I'll be looking at all 3 approaches: INHERITS,
LIKE and Sqitch.
Ken LaCrosse
Senior IT InfoSec and Infrastructure Monitoring Specialist
I.T. | American Recovery Service & Skipbusters
Phone: (800)398-6480 x3758
Email: klacro...@pkwillis.com
www.pkwillis.com
*
On 5/24/19 12:24 PM, Ron wrote:
On 5/24/19 1:27 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 5/24/19 11:15 AM, Ken Lacrosse wrote:
Is there any way in postgresql to have a "snippet" of SQL code which
you could apply to all tables. Something you could add which would
ensure that every table always has a
On 5/24/19 1:27 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 5/24/19 11:15 AM, Ken Lacrosse wrote:
Is there any way in postgresql to have a "snippet" of SQL code which you
could apply to all tables. Something you could add which would ensure
that every table always has a Created, Changed and Deleted column for
On 5/24/19 11:15 AM, Ken Lacrosse wrote:
Is there any way in postgresql to have a "snippet" of SQL code which you
could apply to all tables. Something you could add which would ensure
that every table always has a Created, Changed and Deleted column for
example. Sort of like a C include I
On 5/24/19 1:15 PM, Ken Lacrosse wrote:
Is there any way in postgresql to have a "snippet" of SQL code which you
could apply to all tables. Something you could add which would ensure
that every table always has a Created, Changed and Deleted column for
example. Sort of like a C include I
Is there any way in postgresql to have a "snippet" of SQL code which you could
apply to all tables. Something you could add which would ensure that every
table always has a Created, Changed and Deleted column for example. Sort of
like a C include I suppose. Of course if I'm building a DB
On 5/24/19 10:16 AM, Julie Nishimura wrote:
Adrian, this value was set in config file, and alerting comes from
monitoring.
Yes, but what is the monitoring actually doing to get that value?
Would it be right query to count objects in each database (there are 75
dbs on this server totaling
Adrian, this value was set in config file, and alerting comes from monitoring.
Would it be right query to count objects in each database (there are 75 dbs on
this server totaling close to 20 tb):
SELECT
count(1) as object_count
FROM pg_catalog.pg_class c
WHERE c.relkind IN ('r','i')
?
Thanks!
I have been hoping for clearer direction from the community about
specifically btree_gin indexes for low cardinality columns (as well as low
cardinality multi-column indexes). In general there is very little
discussion about this both online and in the docs. Rather, the emphasis
for GIN indexes
On 5/23/19 11:57 PM, Julie Nishimura wrote:
Hello,
We have an issue with fsm_relations utilization reaching 99%, I was able
How are you arriving at the above percentage?
How many tables/indexes do you have in the database(s)?
to vacuum a handful of tables, but it wasn't enough to make a
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 9:26 AM David Rowley
wrote:
> What does: select stats_Reset from pg_stat_database where datname =
> current_database(); say?
Good guess:
# select stats_reset from pg_stat_database where datname =
current_database();
stats_reset
---
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:20, Luca Ferrari wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:55 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > That clearly seems wrong. Could you try build a small reproducer?
>
> Apparently not, I've tried to simulate the same but without any
> success, that is n_tup_ins is always correctly
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:55 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> That clearly seems wrong. Could you try build a small reproducer?
Apparently not, I've tried to simulate the same but without any
success, that is n_tup_ins is always correctly set.
However, I've noted that this behavior applies up to
Correction about version:
PostgreSQL 8.3.11
Thanks again!!!
From: Julie Nishimura
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 11:57 PM
To: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; pgsql-general
Subject: POSTGRES_FSM_RELATIONS CRITICAL: DB control fsm relations used: 79569
of
Hello,
We have an issue with fsm_relations utilization reaching 99%, I was able to
vacuum a handful of tables, but it wasn't enough to make a noticeable
difference. I think at this point we will need to increase the number of
fsm_relations from 80,000 to 100,000 which will require a restart.
Hello.
At Fri, 17 May 2019 11:04:58 +0300, ayaho...@ibagroup.eu wrote in
> Can frequent database operations cause getting a standby server behind? Is
> there a way to avoid this situation?
> I checked that walsender works well in my test if I set
> wal_sender_timeout at least to 5 second.
On 23/5/19 5:05 μ.μ., ayaho...@ibagroup.eu wrote:
Hello Everyone!
I can simplify and describe the issue I faced.
I have 2 nodes in db cluster: master and standby.
I create a simple table on master node by a command via psql:
CREATE TABLE table1 (a INTEGER);
After this I fill the table by COPY
17 matches
Mail list logo
