Re: Why is Hash index not transaction safe.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  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.