Re: [GENERAL] BDR global sequences in two machine failover

On 7 September 2015 at 20:56, Giovanni Maruzzelli wrote: > If I do not use global sequences, and I use uuid as primary keys, would BDR > be a correct choice? For something like a VoIP service where eventual consistency is usually OK and geographic redundancy with latency

Re: [GENERAL] bdr admin role

On 7 September 2015 at 20:34, Ray Stell wrote: > > > On 9/6/15 10:55 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> >> On 4 September 2015 at 21:46, Ray Stell wrote: >> >> FATAL: role "postgresql" does not exist > > It works if I init with "-U postgresql" >>> >>> The

Re: [GENERAL] Partitioning and constraint exclusion

> > > > ​I am not sure but am doubting it is intelligent enough to recognize the > functional expression even if all of the values are present. "simple > equality" ( > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/interactive/ddl-partitioning.html) > this is not. > Looks like the tables with about 100+

Re: [GENERAL] bdr admin role

On 9/8/15 2:33 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: On 7 September 2015 at 20:34, Ray Stell wrote: On 9/6/15 10:55 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: On 4 September 2015 at 21:46, Ray Stell wrote: I don't see this in my tests. Can you confirm the exact BDR version you're

Re: [GENERAL] LATERAL query extreme slow due to partition

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Tom Smith wrote: > Hi: > > I am using the wonderful lateral query feature like the following > > select * from generate_series (1,10,5) T(t), >lateral (select * from P where t between t and t + 3) > > P is a parent table of a

Re: [GENERAL] LATERAL query extreme slow due to partition

Almost all lateral query would be "dynamic sql" since it will vary as left value changes. perhaps query planner can mark it as "deferred" and during execution, replacing the original planning with a newly generated plan. Or we have to say lateral feature is not suitable for partitioned table. On

Re: [GENERAL] jsonb value retrieval performance

It can be any jsonb so I am asking a general question of the implementaion for each jsonb storage (not about GIN or table wide indexing, but only within a single jsonb item in a single row. A sample would be like (no quotes) { a1: {b1:v1, b2:v2, b100:v100} a3000: {c1:x1, c2: x2. c200: v200 }

Re: [GENERAL] Buffers: shared hit/read to shared_buffers dependence

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote: > Pavel Suderevsky wrote: >> When I have been passing through "Understanding explain" manual >> (http://www.dalibo.org/_media/understanding_explain.pdf) >> I've faced some strange situation when table with size of 65MB

Re: [GENERAL] LATERAL query extreme slow due to partition

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Tom Smith wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Tom Smith >> > How to force query planner "dynamically" generate plan to >> > for

Re: [GENERAL] view

>ERROR: permission denied for relation sub_item So obviously, the user doing the select on the view (ie: YOU) does not have SELECT permission on table sub_item. On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Ramesh T wrote: > HI , > I have view .when i try to select

[GENERAL] view

HI , I have view .when i try to select view ,it had return select * from art; ERROR: permission denied for relation sub_item SQL state: 42501

Re: [GENERAL] view

On 09/08/2015 06:44 AM, Melvin Davidson wrote: >ERROR: permission denied for relation sub_item So obviously, the user doing the select on the view (ie: YOU) does not have SELECT permission on table sub_item. It is more subtle then that: test=# select current_user; current_user

Re: [GENERAL] view

On 09/08/2015 05:19 AM, Ramesh T wrote: HI , I have view .when i try to select view ,it had return select * from art; ERROR: permission denied for relation sub_item Pretty self-explanatory, the user running the query does not have rights on sub_item, which I presume is part of the

Re: [GENERAL] BDR global sequences in two machine failover

Thanks again and more Craig -giovanni On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 7 September 2015 at 20:56, Giovanni Maruzzelli > wrote: > > > If I do not use global sequences, and I use uuid as primary keys, would > BDR > > be a

Re: [GENERAL] jsonb value retrieval performance

and I am trying to get value via jsonb->parentKey->childKey it seems it is very slow. Would it be actually faster to use top level key only and parse it at client side? Suppose, most time is spent for decompressing huge value, not for actual search inside jsonb. If so, we need to implement

Re: [GENERAL] Anyone interested in a Pittsburgh-area Postgres users'

I will be in Pittsburgh full-time starting the middle of Oct, and I would be interested in helping coordinate a UG. I have a feeling that I could convince a number of people I've worked with to get involved as well. On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:10:34 -0400 James Keener wrote: > Is

Re: [GENERAL] Anyone interested in a Pittsburgh-area Postgres users'

Is there a user group in Pittsburgh? This email was the first that showed up in a Google Search. Jim On 2004-05-02 05:43:26, Tom Lane wrote: > I've gotten a couple of inquiries lately about a Postgres users' group > in my home town of Pittsburgh PA. There is not one (unless it's very > well

Re: [GENERAL] jsonb value retrieval performance

Suppose, most time is spent for decompressing huge value, not for actual search inside jsonb. If so, we need to implement some search method which decompress some chunks of jsonb. On artificial example: %SAMP IMAGE FUNCTION CALLERS 92.9 postgres pglz_decompress

Re: [GENERAL] bdr admin role

> $ git rev-parse --short HEAD > 6a60690 > > $ git branch > * bdr-pg/REL9_4_STABLE OK, that's PostgreSQL. What about the BDR extension its self? SELECT bdr.bdr_version() will show you if you're starting up OK, otherwise again the git rev please. -- Craig Ringer