I have a table named "infrastructure" in my postgresql databse. So when a record inserted or updated to this table, 4 different trigger is working. But each trigger takes 1-2 seconds. This is a performance issue for me. So can I send the resords in a queue in postgresql? Then consumers can do trigger operations. Is this possible? Does listen/notify works for this purpose?
Usually queues are better left outside of the DB using dedicated solutions - but if you insist on keeping it in the database then you can try the mBus extension.
I have not used it so can not comment on it.
Related
I've got a system (WSO2SP) which uses PostgreSQL. It stores BLOBs and uses pg_largeobject. I don't have control over how the system uses this Postgres feature. The issue is that the table pg_largeobject is growing constantly and the only way to keep it from growing is cleaning the table using a scheduled task.
Is it possible to analyze requests, queries or another activity to understand why the table might be growing?
Answered by Mohandarshan on Siddhi Slack
As per the default behaviour, state persistence revisions are get cleaned automatically in Siddhi.
In Postgres, there is a separate table to handle the large object.
This is not cleaned even the actual data is removed. In our case, even state persistence data is removed respective pg_largeobject entry is not getting deleted.
It seems, Postgres recommends to remove them using the DB trigger or manual process. You can refer to the guide to get some understanding. Please get help from Postgres community, if you need further guidance on this.
Imagine dropping a subscription and recreating it from scratch. Is it possible to ignore existing data during the first synchronization?
Creating a subscription with (copy_data=false) is not an option because I do want to copy data, I just don't want to copy already existing data.
Example: There is a users table and a corresponding publication on the master. This table has 1 million rows and every minute a new row is added. Then we drop the subscription for a day.
If we recreate the subscription with (copy_data=true), replication will not start due to a conflict with already existing data. If we specify (copy_data=false), 1440 new rows will be missing. How can we synchronize the publisher and the subscriber properly?
You cannot do that, because PostgreSQL has no way of telling when the data were added.
You'd have to reconcile the tables by hand (or INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING).
Unfortunately PostgreSQL does not support nice skip options for conflicts yet, but I believe it will be enhanced in the feature.
Based on #Laurenz Albe answer which recommends the use of the statement:
INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING.
I believe that it would be better to use the following command which also will take care any possible updates on your data before you start the subscription again:
INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE SET...
Finally I have to say that both are dirty solutions as during the execution of the above statement and the creation of the subscription, new lines may have been arrived which will result in losing them until you perform again the custom sync.
I have seen some other suggested solutions using the LSN number from the Postgresql log file...
For me maybe is elegant and safe to delete all the data from the destination table and create the replication again!
I need to populate table in Postgres concurrently by using multiple connections but in scope of single transaction. Is it possible?
I don't see any way to avoid this bottleneck.
Thanks
I am confident that the transaction did not need to.
But if much want to - you can make a staging table, fill it with several routines, and then in a transaction to transfer data in bulk by using such "insert from select"
As there is no support for user defined functions or stored procedures in RedShift, how can i achieve UPSERT mechanism in RedShift which is using ParAccel, a PostgreSQL 8.0.2 fork.
Currently, i'm trying to achieve UPSERT mechanism using IF...THEN...ELSE... statement
e.g:-
IF NOT EXISTS(SELECT...WHERE(SELECT..))
THEN INSERT INTO tblABC() SELECT... FROM tblXYZ
ELSE UPDATE tblABC SET.,.,.,. FROM tblXYZ WHERE...
which is giving me error. As i'm writing this code independently without including it in function or SP's.
So, is there any solution to achieve UPSERT.
Thanks
You should probably read this article on upsert by depesz. You can't rely on SERIALIABLE for this since, AFAIK, ParAccel doesn't support full serializability support like in Pg 9.1+. As outlined in that post, you can't really do what you want purely in the DB anyway.
The short version is that even on current PostgreSQL versions that support writable CTEs it's still hard. On an 8.0 based ParAccel, you're pretty much out of luck.
I'd do a staged merge. COPY the new data to a temporary table on the server, LOCK the destination table, then do an UPDATE ... FROM followed by an INSERT INTO ... SELECT. Doing the data uploads in big chunks and locking the table for the upserts is reasonably in keeping with how Redshift is used anyway.
Another approach is to externally co-ordinate the upserts via something local to your application cluster. Have all your tools communicate via an external tool where they take an "insert-intent lock" before doing an insert. You want a distributed locking tool appropriate to your system. If everything's running inside one application server, it might be as simple as a synchronized singleton object.
I am considering log-shipping of Write Ahead Logs (WAL) in PostgreSQL to create a warm-standby database. However I have one table in the database that receives a huge amount of INSERT/DELETEs each day, but which I don't care about protecting the data in it. To reduce the amount of WALs produced I was wondering, is there a way to prevent any activity on one table from being recorded in the WALs?
Ran across this old question, which now has a better answer. Postgres 9.1 introduced "Unlogged Tables", which are tables that don't log their DML changes to WAL. See the docs for more info, but at least now there is a solution for this problem.
See Waiting for 9.1 - UNLOGGED tables by depesz, and the 9.1 docs.
Unfortunately, I don't believe there is. The WAL logging operates on the page level, which is much lower than the table level and doesn't even know which page holds data from which table. In fact, the WAL files don't even know which pages belong to which database.
You might consider moving your high activity table to a completely different instance of PostgreSQL. This seems drastic, but I can't think of another way off the top of my head to avoid having that activity show up in your WAL files.
To offer one option to my own question. There are temp tables - "temporary tables are automatically dropped at the end of a session, or optionally at the end of the current transaction (see ON COMMIT below)" - which I think don't generate WALs. Even so, this might not be ideal as the table creation & design will be have to be in the code.
I'd consider memcached for use-cases like this. You can even spread the load over a bunch of cheap machines too.