Re: [HACKERS] Determine state of cluster (HA)

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:39:16 +0800 Craig Ringer wrote: > On 13 October 2017 at 08:50, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > I had a long call with a firm developing front end proxy/cache/HA for > > Postgres today. Essentially the software is a replacement for PGPool in > > entirety but also supports analy

[HACKERS] Replication stats from slaves

in such view. Comments? Guidance? Thoughts? Other solutions? Thanks! Regards, [1] https://github.com/dalibo/pgsql-resource-agent/tree/master/multistate -- Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais Dalibo http://www.dalibo.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)

[HACKERS] Bad row estimation with indexed func returning bool

Regards, -- Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais Dalibo http://www.dalibo.com ioguix@erg:~$ dropdb correl ioguix@erg:~$ createdb correl ioguix@erg:~$ psql -qtX correl correl=# CREATE TABLE correl AS SELECT (i-1)%2 AS i, i%2 AS j FROM generate_series(1,10) AS i; correl=# ANALYZE correl ; corr

Re: [HACKERS] Maximum number of WAL files in the pg_xlog directory

et the same answer as you do for > either branch. So The formula, using checkpoint_completion_target=1, should be: greatest ( checkpoint_segments, wal_keep_segments ) + 2 * checkpoint_segments + 1 Please find attached to this email a documentation patch for 9.4 using this formula.

Re: [HACKERS] Maximum number of WAL files in the pg_xlog directory

On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:24:15 +0200 Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 11:15:13 -0500 > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 01:21:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:20:22AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] Maximum number of WAL files in the pg_xlog directory

etion_target worth of WAL which has occurred while the > > > checkpoint was occurring and is still needed for crash recovery. > > > > OK, so based on this analysis, what is the right calculation? This? > > > > (1 + checkpoint_completion_target) * checkpoint_se

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Incremental backup v3: incremental PoC

ike discussed here (by the time, that was Michael's proposal based on pg_basebackup that was discussed). But I wonder how easier it would be to do this the opposite way? If this idea of building diff backup offline from archives is possible, wouldn't it remove a lot of trouble you are disc

[HACKERS] BUG: *FF WALs under 9.2 (WAS: .ready files appearing on slaves)

ded the debug message on the master side to make sure it never archive *FF file We kept the WAL files and log files for further analysis. How can we help regarding this issue? Regards, On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:37:24 +0200 Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > Hi hackers, > >

Re: [HACKERS] .ready files appearing on slaves

Hi hackers, An issue that seems related to this has been posted on pgsql-admin. See: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caas3tylnxaydz0+zhxlpdvtovhqovr+jsphp30o8kvwqqs0...@mail.gmail.com How can we help on this issue? Cheers, On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:50:36 +0200 Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais

[HACKERS] .ready files appearing on slaves

s logs. But there was no known SR disconnection on the second one. Any idea about this weird behaviour? What can we do to help you investigate further? Regards, -- Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais Dalibo http://www.dalibo.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresq

Re: [HACKERS] How can we make beta testing better?

o > record data. Changing the pg.conf is pretty easy with alter system now. But I'm sure we all have some scripts out there doing this (at least I do) > C) tools to *analyze* the output data, including error messages. That's what I lack in pgshark so far. [pgshark] https://github.c

Re: [HACKERS] Unarchived WALs deleted after crash

ile when it closes the >> already-flushed WAL file and switches WAL file to next. So we >> also don't need to check WalRcvInProgress(). > > Ah, I missed that part of the patch. > > Okay, agreed, that's a better fix. I committed your forward-port of >

[HACKERS] Unarchived WALs deleted after crash

00010001" through "000100000010" were removed or recycled. Is it expected ? -- Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais http://www.dalibo.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Process waiting for ExclusiveLock on INSERT

ill waiting for ExclusiveLock on extension of relation 28118 of database 28115 after 100.086 ms 2012-11-13 23:15:51 CET [23137]: [2-1] user=postgres,db=test STATEMENT: insert into test select i, md5(i::text) from generate_series(1,1000) AS i <== Regards, - -- Jehan-Guillaum

[HACKERS] Logging parameters values on bind error

would have logged it. Comments? - -- Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais http://www.dalibo.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlBy/cgACgkQXu9L1HbaT6Li5QCdEa9Zc4g302znpHmrwB9dnRBI JSwAnR2