From: | Paul Linehan <linehanp(at)tcd(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | "pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why is Hash index not transaction safe. |
Date: | 2015-05-04 23:55:18 |
Message-ID: | CAF4RT5RKPgctY+HSk-8odvTFik38fQJS=34x3p57XgxdFYfL3A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
HI all, I have the file postmaster.pid - I would like to know
what the lines mean? I did Google, but didn't find much.
======================================
[pol(at)localhost inst]$ more ./data/postmaster.pid
7382
/home/pol/Downloads/software/postgres/inst/./data
1430769205
5432
/tmp
localhost
5432001 2195471
[pol(at)localhost inst]$
=======================================
"inst" is the base install of the PostgreSQL instance.
7382 is the process id of the .../inst/bin/postgres -D ./data process
I'm curious as to what this line
/home/pol/Downloads/software/postgres/inst/./data
means
The PostgreSQL install is in /home/pol/Downloads/software/postgres/inst/, but
what does the bit of the path inst/./data - I'm unclear as to what the . (dot)
in the middle of that path means.
Is the 1430769205 a UNIX epoch time (seconds since 1970) since the
instance started?
5432 is the port (configurable)
/tmp - the PostgreSQL temp (sorting) directory?
localhost is my machine name (never bothered to give it anything meaningful).
It's the last line
5432001 2195471
that really puzzled me - I don't have a clue what they are about.
I'd be grateful for any input on this matter,
TIA and rgs,
Pól Ua Laoínecháin
2015-05-04 5:11 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Wei Shan <weishan(dot)ang(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I read the following about Hash indexes in Heroku's blog (
>> https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/postgresql-indexes)
>
>> *Hash Indexes are only useful for equality comparisons, but you pretty much
>> never want to use them since they are not transaction safe, need to be
>> manually rebuilt after crashes, and are not replicated to followers, so the
>> advantage over using a B-Tree is rather small.*
>
>> Could anyone explain about why is it not transaction safe as compared to
>> B-Tree index.
>
> They're not crash-safe because they don't have any WAL support, and
> WAL-based replication doesn't work for the same reason. But I think
> the bit about not being transaction-safe is nonsense ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-novice mailing list (pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-novice
--
linehanp(at)tcd(dot)ie
Mob: 00 353 86 864 5772
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul Linehan | 2015-05-04 23:57:50 | Postmaster.pid - what do the various lines stand for? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-04 04:11:33 | Re: Why is Hash index not transaction safe. |