On Thu, 18 May 2017 12:04:42 -0500
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>
> > ... Does PG
> > now pay attention to database in it's SSI implementation?
>
> Well, it pays attention as far as the scope of each lock, but there
> is only one variable to
Hi all,
I am trying to encrypt a string using Bouncy Castle PGP Java apis, Base64
encode the encrypted string and then decrypt using pg_pub_decrypt but it is
failing with error “Wrong Key”. Just wanted to know if this is doable or
pg_pub_decrypt only works with encrypted strings from pg_pub_enc
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> I would say that the best thing to do is to run 9.6 grab pgadmin4 and do all
> the examples in the doc page on partitioning.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/ddl-partitioning.html
>
> If that works well then the question becomes
I would say that the best thing to do is to run 9.6 grab pgadmin4 and do
all the examples in the doc page on partitioning.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/ddl-partitioning.html
If that works well then the question becomes are there any esoteric cases
where pgadmin4 won't quite get you
On 5/18/2017 2:29 PM, Robert Eckhardt wrote:
All the code for creating and managing partitions is part of the core
Postgres code. What we are interested in looking into is what that
work flow might look like and how that workflow can be supported with
a GUI management tool.
only thing I'd e
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Melvin Davidson
wrote:
> Shirley,
> I am a bit confused. AFAIK, it is PostgreSQL that is responsible for table
> partitioning. PgAdmin4 is just an administrative tool.
> Are you saying that PgAdmin4 now can make partition tables automatically?
>
I think maybe she
All the code for creating and managing partitions is part of the core
Postgres code. What we are interested in looking into is what that work
flow might look like and how that workflow can be supported with a GUI
management tool.
-- Rob
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Melvin Davidson
wrote:
>
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:46 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 5/18/2017 1:40 PM, Andrew Kerber wrote:
>
>> It appears to me you might be making this a lot more difficult than
>> necessary. Why not just pre-create the required partitions daily or weekly
>> or monthly? Or do you have a requirement tha
On 5/18/2017 1:40 PM, Andrew Kerber wrote:
It appears to me you might be making this a lot more difficult than
necessary. Why not just pre-create the required partitions daily or
weekly or monthly? Or do you have a requirement that a new partition
only be created the first time it is required?
2017-05-18 22:39 GMT+02:00 Rob Brucks :
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> I can code an exception block to handle the table problem, and probably
> one for the index collision too.
>
Creating partitions dynamically is pretty bad idea. You have to handle a
exceptions - it enforces implicit subtransaction (some sl
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Rob Brucks
wrote:
> My point is how did two concurrent threads successfully create the same
> table?
>
You seem to not be understanding that "CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS" can
succeed without actually creating a table...
David J.
It appears to me you might be making this a lot more difficult than
necessary. Why not just pre-create the required partitions daily or weekly
or monthly? Or do you have a requirement that a new partition only be
created the first time it is required?
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:31 PM, David G. John
Thanks.
I can code an exception block to handle the table problem, and probably one for
the index collision too.
My point is how did two concurrent threads successfully create the same table?
That had to have happened if one of the threads hit a duplicate index error.
It almost seems like Pos
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Rob Brucks
wrote:
> According to this post, adding "if not exists" won't really help for race
> conditions.
>
>
>
> "The bottom line is that CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS doesn't pretend to
>
> handle concurrency issues any better than regular old CREATE TABLE,
>
> w
According to this post, adding "if not exists" won't really help for race
conditions.
"The bottom line is that CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS doesn't pretend to
handle concurrency issues any better than regular old CREATE TABLE,
which is to say not very well." - Robert Haas
https://www.postgresql.or
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Rob Brucks
wrote:
> I am unable to figure out how the trigger was able to successfully create
> the table, but then fail creating the index. I would have expected one
> thread to "win" and create both the table and index, but other threads
> would fail when crea
Hello Everyone,
I've run into a strange error on the PostgreSQL 9.5.4 DB we use for our Zabbix
Server. I implemented auto-partitioning based on the design from this wiki
article:
https://www.zabbix.org/wiki/Docs/howto/zabbix2_postgresql_autopartitioning
I implemented auto-partitioning for the
Shirley,
I am a bit confused. AFAIK, it is PostgreSQL that is responsible for table
partitioning. PgAdmin4 is just an administrative tool.
Are you saying that PgAdmin4 now can make partition tables automatically?
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Shirley Wang wrote:
> Hello!
>
> We're a team from
On May 16, 2017, at 10:20 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Unless you can discard the 5 and 1000 limits you are going to be stuck
> computing rank three times in order to compute and filter them.
Thanks a ton for your insight. I'm suck using them (5 is required for
throttling, 1000 is required
On 05/18/2017 08:49 AM, Martin Goodson wrote:
On 18/05/2017 15:20, Adrian Klaver wrote:
If I remove that link then I can compile. Have no idea why.
Hi! OP here, and here's the feedback on what I'm getting after unlinking
as suggested yesterday:
I tried removing/unlinking as suggested and,
Hello!
We're a team from Pivotal, working with members of the Postgres community
on table partitioning in pgAdmin4. We're looking to chat with some Postgres
users on their expectations with table partitioning within pgAdmin4.
If you have some availability next week, we'd love to set up some time
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> I forget all the details, but some time ago I found
> that I had to increase max_pred_locs_per_transaction.
> What I recall about the reason for this is that I'm
> using the serializable transaction isolation, and that
> I've a test database
Hi,
I forget all the details, but some time ago I found
that I had to increase max_pred_locs_per_transaction.
What I recall about the reason for this is that I'm
using the serializable transaction isolation, and that
I've a test database which occasionally has extremely
long running transactions.
On 18/05/2017 15:20, Adrian Klaver wrote:
If I remove that link then I can compile. Have no idea why.
Hi! OP here, and here's the feedback on what I'm getting after unlinking
as suggested yesterday:
I tried removing/unlinking as suggested and, just like Adrian, it worked
OK for me! :)
T
Thanks, Merlin - lots of good information here, and I had not yet stumbled
across pg-large-object - I will look into it.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Merlin Moncure [mailto:mmonc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:49 AM
To: Eric Hill
Cc: Thomas Kellerer ; PostgreSQL General
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Patrick B wrote:
> I created a view selecting from both tables, with a UNION ALL between them.
> When selecting from that view, it's really slow. I can't even run explain
> analyze (it's been 1h and query did not finished yet).
Have you ruled out locks? Let the se
On 05/17/2017 02:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adrian Klaver writes:
>> I could build repmgr against Postgres source and on Ubuntu install of
>> EDB Postgres. The issue seems to be a combination of RH and EDB Postgres
>> installation. To me it looks like ld is finding
>> /lib64/libldap_r-2.4.so.2 libra
My apologies: I said I ran "this query" but failed to include the query. It
was merely this:
SELECT "indexFile"."_id", "indexFile"."contents"
FROM "mySchema"."indexFiles" AS "indexFile"
WHERE "indexFile"."_id" = '591c609bb56d0849404e4720';
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Eric Hill [mailt
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Eric Hill wrote:
> I would be thrilled to get 76 MB per second, and it is comforting to know
> that we have that as a rough upper bound on performance. I've got work to do
> to figure out how to approach that upper bound from Node.js.
>
> In the meantime, I've b
On 05/18/2017 05:46 AM, Rakesh Mamidala wrote:
Hi Buddies,
I am trying to migrate Sql server database to PostgreSql, But i am
failing with the error like MTK-03000: General Error
java.lang.ClassCastException: org.postgresql.jdbc.PgConnection cannot be
cast to org.postgresql.jdbc2.AbstractJdb
Il 18/05/2017 14:46, Rakesh Mamidala ha
scritto:
java.lang.ClassCastException:
org.postgresql.jdbc.PgConnection cannot be cast to
org.postgresql.jdbc2.AbstractJdbc2Connection
This appea
Hi Buddies,
I am trying to migrate Sql server database to PostgreSql, But i am failing
with the error like MTK-03000: General Error
java.lang.ClassCastException: org.postgresql.jdbc.PgConnection cannot be
cast to org.postgresql.jdbc2.AbstractJdbc2Connection
Please anybody can help me to resolve
I would be thrilled to get 76 MB per second, and it is comforting to know that
we have that as a rough upper bound on performance. I've got work to do to
figure out how to approach that upper bound from Node.js.
In the meantime, I've been looking at performance on the read side. For that,
I
33 matches
Mail list logo
