Hi,
I’m writing a new web app, and I’ve been experimenting with some async DB
access libraries [1]. I also see some discussion online about a future Java
standard to replace or supplement JDBC with an async API.
While I understand the benefits of async in some situations, it seems to me
that t
> On Jun 15, 2019, at 1:47 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> Basically because java would have to create a type dynamically to parse the
> data into.
> There's nothing inherently difficult about parsing the data, the problem is
> what do we put it into ?
(I accidentally replied off-list, so resend
Greetings,
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 2019-Jun-16, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > The issue being discussed here is writing out to the heap files during a
> > checkpoint...
>
> We don't really know, as it was already established that the log line is
> misattributing time
On 2019-Jun-16, Stephen Frost wrote:
> The issue being discussed here is writing out to the heap files during a
> checkpoint...
We don't really know, as it was already established that the log line is
misattributing time spent ...
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Po
Greetings,
* Tiemen Ruiten (t.rui...@tech-lab.io) wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 7:30 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Ok, so you want fewer checkpoints because you expect to failover to a
> > replica rather than recover the primary on a failure. If you're doing
> > synchronous replication, then th
Greetings,
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 2019-Jun-16, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Not likely to help with what you're experiencing anyway though...
>
> My gut feeling is that you're wrong, since (as I understand) the
> symptoms are the same.
The issue in the linked-to thre
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 7:30 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> Ok, so you want fewer checkpoints because you expect to failover to a
> replica rather than recover the primary on a failure. If you're doing
> synchronous replication, then that certainly makes sense. If you
> aren't, then you're deciding
On 2019-Jun-16, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Not likely to help with what you're experiencing anyway though...
My gut feeling is that you're wrong, since (as I understand) the
symptoms are the same.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Re
Hi,
out of curiosity I created the following setup, all with 9.6 and pglogical.
D1 is configured as provider with a replication set that contains only 1
table. Only inserts are replicated.
D2 is configured as subscriber for that replication set. Replication works,
all inserts on D2 arrive also o
Greetings,
* Tiemen Ruiten (t.rui...@tech-lab.io) wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 8:57 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Note that Joyent ended up proposing patches to fix their performance
> > problem (and got them committed). Maybe it would be useful for Tiemen
> > to try that code? (That commi
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 8:57 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Note that Joyent ended up proposing patches to fix their performance
> problem (and got them committed). Maybe it would be useful for Tiemen
> to try that code? (That commit cherry-picks cleanly on REL_11_STABLE.)
>
Interesting! The per
On 2019-Jun-14, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> There was a discussion about ZFS' COW behaviour and PostgreSQL reusing
> WAL files not being a good combination about a year ago:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CACukRjO7DJvub8e2AijOayj8BfKK3XXBTwu3KKARiTr67M3E3w%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Maybe yo
I wrote:
> ... I'd suggest recasting this as a join between
> pg_catalog and pg_attribute, which would make the join condition
> just "where c.oid = a.attrelid".
Sigh, that should be "between pg_class and pg_attribute" of course.
I'm really only firing on one cylinder today :-(
"Peter J. Holzer" writes:
> On 2019-06-16 18:03:02 +0200, John Mikel wrote:
>> here is my query
>> select A.table_name as "table_name",A.domain_name as "domain",
>> format_type(c.atttypid, c.atttypmod) AS data_type ,A.column_name as
>> "column_name",
>> A.is_nullable as "nullable",A.colum
On 2019-06-16 18:03:02 +0200, John Mikel wrote:
> hi again
> here is my query
> select A.table_name as "table_name",A.domain_name as "domain",
> format_type(c.atttypid, c.atttypmod) AS data_type ,A.column_name as
> "column_name",
> A.is_nullable as "nullable",A.column_default as "default"
Greetings,
* Jeff Janes (jeff.ja...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 4:50 AM Tiemen Ruiten wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:43 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> The time information is all there and it tells you what it's doing and
> >> how much had to be done... If you're unhappy with
Greetings,
* Tiemen Ruiten (t.rui...@tech-lab.io) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:43 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Tiemen Ruiten (t.rui...@tech-lab.io) wrote:
> > > checkpoint_timeout = 60min
> >
> > That seems like a pretty long timeout.
>
> My reasoning was that a longer recovery time to av
hi again
here is my query
*select A.table_name as "table_name",A.domain_name as "domain",*
* format_type(c.atttypid, c.atttypmod) AS data_type ,A.column_name as
"column_name",*
* A.is_nullable as "nullable",A.column_default as "default"*
* from information_schema.columns A inner join pg_att
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 4:50 AM Tiemen Ruiten wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:43 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
>
>>
>> The time information is all there and it tells you what it's doing and
>> how much had to be done... If you're unhappy with how long it takes to
>> write out gigabytes of data an
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 08:02 Tiemen Ruiten wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I setup a new 3-node cluster with the following specifications:
>
> 2x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2630 v4 @ 2.20GHz (2*20 cores)
> 128 GB RAM
> 8x Crucial MX500 1TB SSD's
>
> FS is ZFS, the dataset with the PGDATA directory on it has th
20 matches
Mail list logo
