Sounds like "fsync = true" is the consensus for any circumstances where data
loss is intolerable.
Thx.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Joe Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tried a few different things to try to get the shmmax value to be
> something other than 4194304 (the default in /etc/rc).
> First, I restarted my mac, then, as the root user...
You can't change shmmax on-the-fly in OS X --- that's why it's set up in
/e
Actually, I don't think even that is a valid test. The absence of a
failure doesn't mean one can't occur in this case. Doesn't matter if you
try the test 1 or 10,000 times; the test will only be conclusive if you
actually see a failure.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 10:19:15AM -0700, scott.marlowe wrote
On Feb 10, 2004, at 2:18 AM, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
At 11:44 AM 2/9/2004 -0500, Doug McNaught wrote:
John Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a
Quad
> Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
> PostgreSQL cod
Hrm, I didn't realize that. Is it in the docs anywhere? I didn't see it
in Chapter 11... I'm particularly interested in why NULL/NOT NULL isn't
indexable.
Are where clauses on indexes like
email_contrib__team_id btree (team_id) WHERE (team_id IS NOT NULL)
still valid/usefull? If I wanted to crea
Joe Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
That's odd. It's giving me a -1 for the shmmax value. I assume that's
NOT normal. Why would that be?
It's not --- you should get back the same value you set. I speculate
that you tried to set a value that exceeded some internal sanity check
in the kernel.
I am converting data from Access into Postgres and ran into
an issue with case sensitivity. Can I write queries in Access that will be case
insensitive without rewriting the queries.
So I would like to know if this be handled in Postgres or even if
someone knows in Access. Thank you.
Campano, Troy wrote:
> Is there a way to get the size of your PostgreSQL database using sql?
> I need this for an inventory program.
No, not db size. You have to use 'du'. See the manual section
"Managing Disk Space" in the admin section.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://can
Title: db_space
Is there a way to get the size of your PostgreSQL database using sql?
I need this for an inventory program.
Thanks!
Troy Campano
Liberty Mutual
Infrastructure Software Engineering
Database Management
desk: (603) 245 4092
cell: (603) 219 5539
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm guessing they mean the SQL to recreate the database.
> Normally pg_dump will
> dump both the schema-creationg SQL and the data for the
> tables. You can
> restrict this with --data-only or --schema-only.
That's what I do now: I dump the schema along with the data.
> Difficult to say wha
On Monday 09 February 2004 16:36, nednieuws | charles wrote:
> Oh, is that it. I thought they were talking about a script to init the db
> :-).
>
> They said: If you send the init script along with the dump, it's easier to
> restore the db.
Hmm - that's probably not what they want.
I'm guessing t
Joe Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I installed Postgres 7.4.1 on a dual processor G5 running Mac OS
10.3.2. I'm trying to increase the max_connections to 300 and running
into some trouble.
Hmm, it WorksForMe (TM). You did reboot after changing /etc/rc, no?
Yes, I did a "Restart".
Try "sysctl
James Moe wrote:
> John Gibson wrote:
> >
> > Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a Quad
> > Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
> > PostgreSQL code is written for 32 bit and not optimized for the 64 bit
> > Itanium cpu. That makes me t
Joe Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's odd. It's giving me a -1 for the shmmax value. I assume that's
> NOT normal. Why would that be?
It's not --- you should get back the same value you set. I speculate
that you tried to set a value that exceeded some internal sanity check
in the kerne
Doug McNaught wrote:
John Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a Quad
Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
PostgreSQL code is written for 32 bit and not optimized for the 64 bit
Itanium cpu. That makes
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, John Gibson wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> I need to upgrade my dual Xeon PostgreSQL engine.
>
> Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a Quad
> Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
> PostgreSQL code is written for 32 bit and not
At 11:44 AM 2/9/2004 -0500, Doug McNaught wrote:
John Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a Quad
> Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
> PostgreSQL code is written for 32 bit and not optimized for the 6
Joe Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I installed Postgres 7.4.1 on a dual processor G5 running Mac OS
> 10.3.2. I'm trying to increase the max_connections to 300 and running
> into some trouble.
Hmm, it WorksForMe (TM). You did reboot after changing /etc/rc, no?
Try "sysctl -a | grep sysv"
John Gibson wrote:
Hi, all.
I need to upgrade my dual Xeon PostgreSQL engine.
Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a Quad
Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
PostgreSQL code is written for 32 bit and not optimized for the 64 bit
Itanium
On Monday February 9 2004 9:22, Joe Lester wrote:
>
> I've tried increasing the shmmax in /etc/rc to a really high number,
> but I'm still getting errors when I try to start postgres with pg_ctl:
>
> 2004-02-09 11:07:24 FATAL: could not create shared memory segment:
> Invalid argument
> sysctl -w
This sure looks a lot like what I already tried, but I will try it again...
d L. wrote:
This works on 7.3.4:
CREATE TABLE foo (id SERIAL, starttime TIMESTAMP, endtime TIMESTAMP);
CREATE FUNCTION adjust_end_time() RETURNS "trigger" AS '
BEGIN
IF NEW.endtime ISNULL THEN
NEW.end
John Gibson wrote:
Assuming similar memory and disk sub-systems, I am considering a Quad
Xeon system vs. a Dual Itanium for PostgreSQL. I believe that the
PostgreSQL code is written for 32 bit and not optimized for the 64 bit
Itanium cpu. That makes me think that the Xeon system would be a bet
22 matches
Mail list logo