Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7208B1336B42 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 18:08:42 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 43347-06 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 22:08:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.8]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB27C1336971 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 18:08:34 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (mail.highperformancepostgresql.com [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MWhPH-1PcDHE1ri7-00XdFF; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 23:08:28 +0100 Message-ID: <4D51BED9.3000407@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:08:25 -0500 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Marlowe CC: Marti Raudsepp , Kevin Grittner , sthomas@peak6.com, Maciek Sakrejda , felix , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Really really slow select count(*) References: <4D4C138C.7010304@2ndquadrant.com> <4D4C1555.40209@peak6.com> <4D4C2AC3.5020804@peak6.com> <4D5151C6.7040109@peak6.com> <4D511C99020000250003A62D@gw.wicourts.gov> <4D51A304.4070003@2ndquadrant.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:avpNw3gEK6AtNxGCFQ/JIGxjGvtBYksVRjHVOxPhw5L f4CPoAvQvzNf3I2x63C7yzRjLvUQgeBRkYqXy6uCKbULi4/gbD NL72UoVZAE/IeVzYYafsIc5W7AOYiQR5/dsMh0oBIJokjulPY5 rJ9CsNtaZ9rh7Gk2nCtsMiB3xPgHI3NrvT1gHUCovs0zrBgpru hq9JM8uCgg0Nv8+UY/VHhO3vHLtkZxA+2LAiyzWeVg= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201102/319 X-Sequence-Number: 42457 Scott Marlowe wrote: > Are there any settings in postgresql.conf that would make it unsafe to > use -m immediate? > Two concerns: -Clients will be killed without any review, and data related to them lost -The server will have to go through recovery to start back up again, which could potentially take a long time. If you manage a successful shutdown that doesn't happen. Shouldn't be unsafe, just has those issues. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books