Hi all,
A customer's database has started whining about a busted block:
postgresql-8.4-main.log:2012-10-02 18:51:33 EST ERROR: invalid page header in
block 8429809 of relation base/807305056/950827614
postgresql-8.4-main.log:2012-10-02 18:56:52 EST ERROR: invalid page header in
block 8429809
I'm having trouble understanding why these two queries produce different
results:
test=# select (select random()) from generate_series(1,10); -- rows are the same
?column?
---
0.770797704812139
0.770797704812139
0.770797704812139
0.770797704812139
On 02/11/2011, at 2:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com writes:
[ random() is evaluated only once in ]
test=# select (select random()) from generate_series(1,10); -- rows are the
same
I understand that it's likely an optimisation thing -- postgres knows
On 26/10/2011, at 1:17 PM, Lee Hachadoorian wrote:
I need some advice on storing/retrieving data in large rows. Invariably
someone points out that very long rows are probably poorly normalized, but I
have to deal with how to store a dataset which cannot be changed,
specifically the
I'm in the process of testing out Postgres 9.0 for production use. I've been
using it for development on my mac, a build from EnterpriseDB. We've just
installed a 9.0.5 on an Ubuntu (Ubuntu 10.04.3 LTS) machine from a backport
from lucid. There's an existing 8.4.8 postgres install also on
On 30/09/2011, at 8:57 AM, Jason Long wrote:
I thought I had read somewhere that Postges could ignore a join if it
was not necessary because there were no columns from the table or view
selected in the query. Is this possible?
You might be thinking of this enhancement introduced in 9.0:
On 30/09/2011, at 8:57 AM, Jason Long wrote:
I thought I had read somewhere that Postges could ignore a join if it
was not necessary because there were no columns from the table or view
selected in the query. Is this possible?
You might be thinking of this enhancement introduced in
I created a new view called clients2 with the same member tables as clients
and it works I can query it.
But due to the many hardcoded places that use clients view, I have to have
clients view. So I tried to drop clients view but cannot
#DROP view clients;
ERROR: missing chunk
why...?
I'm not sure, Chris - perhaps others on the mailing list can answer this?
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com wrote:
This might help you:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/queries-with.html
On 24/08/2011, at 9:54 AM, Chris Hanks wrote
This might help you:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/queries-with.html
On 24/08/2011, at 9:54 AM, Chris Hanks wrote:
I have two tables:
CREATE TABLE items
(
root_id integer NOT NULL,
id serial NOT NULL,
-- Other fields...
CONSTRAINT items_pkey PRIMARY KEY (root_id, id)
Hi all,
A few days ago one of our postgres (8.3.12) servers was a bit unhappy, and
someone decided to try a kill -9 on a backend process after a kill (TERM) was
ineffective. I've read many times in the past that a kill -9 can be pretty
hazardous to a postgres' health, and now it seems I get
Hi all,
Got an odd one.
test=# select version();
version
On 02/03/2011, at 2:16 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
Its getting id1 from the parent table. (test2) You can use fields from the
parent table in subselects.
try this and it'll complain:
select * from test2 where id1 in (select junk from test1) and charge=70;
Oh! Of course! What a fool.
Hi all,
My company is having trouble managing how we upgrade schema changes across many
versions of our software. I imagine this is a common problem and there're
probably some neat solutions that we don't know about.
For the last 10 years we have been writing bash shell scripts essentially
On 11/02/2011, at 9:59 AM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
Royce Ausburn wrote on 10.02.2011 22:38:
I'm really interested to hear how you guys manage schema upgrades in
the face of branches and upgrading from many different versions of
the database.
We are quite happy with Liquibase. You can
So, 10.0 at 10057.
11.0 at 11023.
then 10.1 needs some fixes so db is bumped to 10058.
Then, later, you can upgrade 10057 to 11023, but you cant get 10058 to 11023.
Humm... maybe you need smarter upgrade scripts? Would having logic in the
script help? Something like:
if not
Don't the bash scripts get checked in to .../perforce/cvs/svn/git/...?
Aren't they part of the resources of the project(s)?
Yep - they absolutely are. The issue is that there're multiple branches
*potentially* having new scripts committed. Fortunately it's rare as the
release branches
G'day all,
We recently had a bit of a catastrophe when one of our postgres databases
opened too many files. It was a reasonably easy fix, but it did get me
thinking. Is there a rule of thumb in determining how many file descriptors
should be available to a postgres database/cluster?
I'd be
18 matches
Mail list logo
