David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 03:32:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
[ shrug... ] To me, HS+SR is actual replication, which would
justify tagging this release 9.0. With only one of them, it's 8.5.
I understand that there are power users who would find HS alone to
be
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
I've done that in my git branch.
Could you push that git branch to a public place?
Ahh, sorry, forgot that again. It's there now, at
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 11:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Personally, I would rather have a release without SR in June or July
than a release with SR in August or September.
If SR will be ready until then, I'd like to see a release in September
which has SR in it. We already postponed SR a lot.
2010/1/7 Devrim GÜNDÜZ dev...@gunduz.org:
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 11:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Personally, I would rather have a release without SR in June or July
than a release with SR in August or September.
June, yes. July, frankly, no, because July == September, when it comes
to any
On Thursday 07 January 2010 18:10:43 Magnus Hagander wrote:
Not having our release schedule driven by marketing is a *strength* of
our project!
Yes.
We made the mistake last time to delay the release significantly for a
single feature. It turned out said feature didn't make it *anyway*.
2010/1/7 Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net:
2010/1/7 Devrim GÜNDÜZ dev...@gunduz.org:
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 11:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Personally, I would rather have a release without SR in June or July
than a release with SR in August or September.
June, yes. July, frankly, no,
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
We made the mistake last time to delay the release significantly for a
single feature. It turned out said feature didn't make it *anyway*.
Let's not repeat that mistake.
Yeah, we've certainly learned that lesson often enough, or should I say
failed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
However, HS is already in the tree, and HS without SR is a whole lot
less compelling than HS with SR. So it's going to be pretty
unsatisfying if we can't get SR in there.
I don't think that's the case. Having HS alone would be a huge win,
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
However, HS is already in the tree, and HS without SR is a whole lot
less compelling than HS with SR. So it's going to be pretty
unsatisfying if we can't get SR in there.
I don't think that's the case. Having HS
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
We made the mistake last time to delay the release significantly for a
single feature. It turned out said feature didn't make it *anyway*.
Let's not repeat that mistake.
Yeah,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
while I agree that HS is very useful without SR, I think that it's
mostly the well known powerusers inthe community are actively waiting
for HS and not so much for SR. For the typical user outside of -hackers
or even -general I'm not so
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I like Andres' suggestion upthread of setting a deadline and
determining to bounce the patch if it's not committed by that date.
If it turns out we have to bounce it, that stinks, but I don't think
it makes sense to go to beta with a huge,
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I like Andres' suggestion upthread of setting a deadline and
determining to bounce the patch if it's not committed by that date.
If it turns out we have to bounce it, that stinks, but I
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I like Andres' suggestion upthread of setting a deadline and
determining to bounce the patch if it's not committed by that date.
If it turns out we have to bounce it, that stinks, but I don't think
it makes sense to go to beta with
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
That may well be so, but adding another one is not going to improve
the situation even a little bit. I don't think what you're saying
weakens in the slightest the argument that I was making, namely, that
if this isn't committed RSN it should be
Well, the argument to my mind is about a suitable value of RSN.
I think you were stating that we should bounce SR if it's not committed
before the final commitfest starts (ie, next week). I think we can give
it more slack than that. Maybe the end of the fest (where the length of
the fest
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
That may well be so, but adding another one is not going to improve
the situation even a little bit. I don't think what you're saying
weakens in the slightest the argument that I was
I am really reluctant to go through another cycle of giving a big
feature as much time as humanly possible before bouncing it, and then
bouncing it anyway, and I fear that is what will happen. I don't
believe this patch has had a major rewrite since it was submitted for
the September
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I like Andres' suggestion upthread of setting a deadline and
determining to bounce the patch if it's not committed by that date.
If it turns out we have to bounce
Josh Berkus wrote:
Yes. I think there's tremendous value to PG if we could get HS+SR into
8.5. And I know that SR is what Heikki is working on exclusively.
That hasn't been true for some time, I haven't spent very much time on
SR recently. Not enough, really.
But FWIW I have dedicated today
On Jan 7, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
But FWIW I have dedicated today and tomorrow for SR, and plan to
dedicate 2-3 days next week as well.
Should we then await what you determine over the next week?
Best,
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com writes:
However, HS is already in the tree, and HS without SR is a whole lot
less compelling than HS with SR. So it's going to be pretty
unsatisfying if we can't get SR in there.
I don't think that's the case. Having HS alone would be a huge win,
and
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 21:22, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com writes:
However, HS is already in the tree, and HS without SR is a whole lot
less compelling than HS with SR. So it's going to be pretty
unsatisfying if we can't get SR in there.
I don't
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 21:22, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
No, I don't think so. HS without SR means you still have to fool with
setting up WAL-file-based replication, which despite the existence of
pg_standby is a PITA. And you have to make
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Josh Berkus wrote:
Yes. I think there's tremendous value to PG if we could get HS+SR into
8.5. And I know that SR is what Heikki is working on exclusively.
That hasn't been true for some time, I haven't spent very much time on
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I am tempted to say we should clamp down and go into damage control
mode sooner rather than later.
The more I see of the HS patch, the more I think the same. But my
proposal for damage control mode would be to immediately punt
everything else to the
Tom Lane wrote:
[ shrug... ] To me, HS+SR is actual replication, which would justify
tagging this release 9.0. With only one of them, it's 8.5. I
understand that there are power users who would find HS alone to be
tremendously useful, but in terms of what the average user sees, there's
a
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
That may well be so, but adding another one is not going to improve
the situation even a little bit. I don't think what you're saying
weakens in the slightest the argument that I was
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I am tempted to say we should clamp down and go into damage control
mode sooner rather than later.
The more I see of the HS patch, the more I think the same. But my
proposal for
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 21:22, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
No, I don't think so. ?HS without SR means you still have to fool with
setting up WAL-file-based replication, which despite the existence of
pg_standby is a PITA.
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 15:49 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Right. As someone engaged in the marketplace, I can tell you that
IMNSHO it is almost impossible to overstate the importance of getting
both of these features. We will suffer an enormous loss of face and
respect if we don't.
+1. That
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
But FWIW I have dedicated today and tomorrow for SR, and plan to
dedicate 2-3 days next week as well.
So you carefully avoided answering the question: when do you think it
might be committable?
:-). I was hoping
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I am tempted to say we should clamp down and go into damage control
mode sooner rather than later.
The more I see of the HS patch, the more I think the same. But my
proposal for
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I am tempted to say we should clamp down and go into damage control
mode sooner rather than later.
The more I see of the HS patch, the more
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Hmm. There's something to what you say, but what about the people who
were expecting their patches to be reviewed and perhaps committed in
the forthcoming CommitFest. I proposed a schedule for this release
that involved only three CommitFests and it
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
No, I don't think so. HS without SR means you still have to fool with
setting up WAL-file-based replication, which despite the existence of
pg_standby is a PITA. And you have to make a tradeoff of how often to
flush WAL files to the standby. To be a real
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 03:32:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 21:22, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
No, I don't think so. �HS without SR means you still have to fool
with setting up WAL-file-based replication, which despite
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
while I agree that HS is very useful without SR, I think that it's
mostly the well known powerusers inthe community are actively waiting
for HS and not so much for SR. For the typical user outside of -hackers
or
Fujii Masao wrote:
I've done that in my git branch.
Could you push that git branch to a public place?
Ahh, sorry, forgot that again. It's there now, at
git://git.postgresql.org/git/users/heikki/postgres.git, branch
'replication'.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
This was probably discussed to death earlier, but: why was it decided to
not simply use a different port for listening for walsender
connections?
I believe that using a different port would
Craig Ringer cr...@postnewspapers.com.au writes:
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
This was probably discussed to death earlier, but: why was it decided to
not simply use a different port for listening for walsender
Looking at the latest streaming replication patch, I don't much like the
signaling between WAL sender and postmaster. It seems complicated, and
as a rule of thumb postmaster shouldn't be accessing shared memory. The
current signaling is:
1. A new connection arrives. A new backend process is
Heikki Linnakangas escribió:
Looking at the latest streaming replication patch, I don't much like the
signaling between WAL sender and postmaster. It seems complicated, and
as a rule of thumb postmaster shouldn't be accessing shared memory. The
current signaling is:
1. A new connection
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I think it would be better to utilize the existing array of child
processes in pmsignal.c. Instead of having postmaster peek into
WalSndCtlData, let's add a new state to PMChildFlags,
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
This was probably discussed to death earlier, but: why was it decided to
not simply use a different port for listening for walsender
connections?
I believe that using a different port would make the setup
of
45 matches
Mail list logo
