I installed Postgresql 9.6 on Windows (x64), using the default installer.
I did this on 2 almost identical machines. On the first machine making a connection to localhost (for example by using psql) is instant, while on the other machine it takes more than 10 seconds.
I even copied the entire directory of the first machine, to make sure there is no difference, but the problem persists. The services are the same, and already running when Windows starts.
What on earth could cause this delay on that one machine?
Any way to identify what's going on?
Related
I have a ubuntu server with postgres installed. It is showing me 2 processes running under postgres user. One of them is a cron command and the other tsm.
I have absolutely no idea how they are being executed. I have been trying to google it for hours and I cannot seem to find any references for them.
Any idea where to start looking and how to switch them off ?
Immediate problem: When I do a pgAdmin 4 restore I get "Stymied by idle_in_transaction_session_timeout" error.
I am on a MacBook Pro running macOS Mojave version 10.14.5, using Java and PostgreSQL. I use the pgAdmin 4 GUI, as I am not proficient in psql, bash, etc. I have a test database named pg2. As you can see from the attachment, PostgreSQL servers 9.4 and 10 have the identical databases. If I make a change in a database on one server, it will show also in the other server’s database. There is a third server, 11, in which there is only the postgres database.
I have tried psql and get errors (including timeout errors).
I have tried to Delete/Drop server 11, it will disappear but when I sign out of pgAdmin 4 and then go into pgAdmin 4 again the server 11 will be there again.
See the attachments for screen shots.
I expect the backup/restore to work: backup, then make a change to the database, then correctly restore to previous state.
I would like to have just one server, preferably 11 with only pg1 and the test db tempdb running in it. I thought that I could live with the three, for I am aware of my current capabilities and thus did not want to screw things up further. However, I suspect that the two servers 9.4 and 10 are the source of my current problem: receiving the idle_in_transaction_session_timeout error while doing a restore. Note: I did the backup using the server 10’s pg1 backup. Did it create 2 backups, one for 9.4 and one for 10?
I tried to attach these before. They will help make sense of my problem.
The 2 servers have the same database; is this causing the idle in transaction session timeout?
I am running PostgreSQL v9.6 on windows 10. Today I tried using a program that uses PostgreSQL Databases and couldn't connect to it. I went to the Services menu in Computer Management and noticed PostgreSQL wasn't running. I tried to run it and received
When I goto PGAdmin4 both Databases are still running however.
I've been working on a backup / restore for a Postgres server for quite a while now. It's an Azure Windows Virtual Machine (Windows server 2012).
The database isn't that big (near 5Gb), but the restore takes (literally) days. I've tried (several) times with different settings to restore the database, but all of the times it took days to "finish" (it didn't finish - I killed the process because I didn't see anything happening, that's why I'm running the job verbose this time).
I've now been running the job (verbose one) for 5 days straight and still it isn't finished. It's inserting rows (or at least displaying the rows), but it's still running.
Currently I'm using this command:
pg_restore -Fc -v --jobs=2 --host=localhost [filename]
Jobs is set at 2 because it's a dual core server. Like I said: different settings still very very slow.
What is wrong - should I be "tuning" the database before the restore or what?
This is a test-server setup. When we're doing with the test the current data need to be restored (again) to the new production server: we can't afford to wait days on end before the production environment comes online.
It's not pushing errors into the logs or something - it just keeps running and running and running...
So what am I doing wrong?
I am trying to do a local installation of a large but simple installation PostgreSQL 9.3.2 to hold about 14 GB of data, currently in a CSV file. This is my first attempt to install any database other than SQLite. The installer is asking me questions that I do not know how to answer and that seem inappropriate for an installation that I do not want to make available to the internet. I expect to be interacting with it through the R package RPostgreSQL. The database will contain primarily US Census data that is publicly available for free, and so not a tempting target. For instance, the installer asks me what port to use, and seems to require that I set a password. I prefer to set it up with no internet or remote accessibility at all, even from me.
Could someone tell me or point me toward documentation for producing a strictly local installation with minimal irrelevant hoops to jump through, both on installation and on use? I did a series of searches on variant of PostgreSQL & “install locally” or “local installation” or “create local database”, etc. but these were unproductive.
This will be on an ancient but lightly rebuilt Compaq laptop, Intel Core 2 Duo, Windows XP OS with SP3.
Any help folks could offer much appreciated.
If you're looking for an install that doesn't run a server and listen on TCP/IP, it isn't really possible, because PostgreSQL is a client/server database that (on Windows) communicates with clients solely over TCP/IP.
A "local only" install is one where the TCP/IP socket listens only on localhost, i.e. 127.0.0.1.
If you were really keen, you could not install the Windows service for the server at all, and just grab the binaries. To use PostgreSQL you would then have to initdb a new database directory, and start PostgreSQL when you wanted it with pg_ctl. See the user manual for details on these commands. When running, PostgreSQL would still be a server listening on a TCP/IP port, there's just no way around that on Windows.
On UNIX systems PostgreSQL can listen on a unix socket (a bit like a windows named pipe). This is not supported by PostgreSQL on Windows. Even then, it still has to run a server.
If you're looking for something like an embedded, on-demand, or in-memory PostgreSQL that runs out of the client library, there is no such thing.