On 29.01.2011 09:10, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 27.01.2011 06:44, Fujii Masao wrote:
+ XLByteToSeg(endptr, endlogid, endlogseg);
snip
+ /* Have we reached our stop
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 05:44, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
We should, and the easiest way is to actually use XLogRead() since the
code is already there. How about the way in this patch?
Thanks for the
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
In pg_basebackup.sgml
termoption--checkpoint replaceable
class=parameterfast|spread/replaceable/option/term
Though this is not the problem of the patch, I found the inconsistency
of the descriptions about options
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
In pg_basebackup.sgml
termoption--checkpoint replaceable
class=parameterfast|spread/replaceable/option/term
Though this is not the problem
On 27.01.2011 06:44, Fujii Masao wrote:
+ XLByteToSeg(endptr, endlogid, endlogseg);
snip
+ /* Have we reached our stop position yet? */
+ if (logid endlogid ||
+ (logid == endlogid logseg= endlogseg))
+
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 27.01.2011 06:44, Fujii Masao wrote:
+ XLByteToSeg(endptr, endlogid, endlogseg);
snip
+ /* Have we reached our stop position yet? */
+
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
We should, and the easiest way is to actually use XLogRead() since the
code is already there. How about the way in this patch?
Thanks for the update. I reread the patch.
+ MemSet(statbuf, 0,
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Here's an updated version of the patch:
* rebased on the current git master (including changing the switch
from -w to -x since -w was used now)
* includes some documentation
* use XLogByteToSeg and uint32 as
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:56, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Here's an updated version of the patch:
* rebased on the current git master (including changing the switch
from -w to -x since -w was used now)
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
+ elog(DEBUG1, Going to send wal from %i.%i to %i.%i,
+ logid, logseg,
+ endlogid, endlogseg);
%u should be used instead of %i. Or how about logging the
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
(the discussed changse above have been applied and pushed to github)
Thanks! I'll test and review that.
WAL file might get recycled or removed while walsender is reading it.
So the WAL file which pg_basebackup seemingly
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 15:04, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
(the discussed changse above have been applied and pushed to github)
Thanks! I'll test and review that.
WAL file might get recycled or removed
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 16:34, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 15:04, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
(the discussed changse above have been applied and pushed to github)
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:45, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
- Why not initialize logid and
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 09:03, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:45, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
- Why not initialize logid and logseg like so?:
int logid = startptr.xlogid;
int logseg = startptr.xrecoff / XLogSegSize;
Then use those in your elog? Seems
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:45, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
- Why not initialize logid and logseg like so?:
int logid = startptr.xlogid;
int logseg =
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 05:03, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Greetings,
* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote:
For now, you need to set wal_keep_segments to make it work properly,
but if you do the idea is that the tar file/stream generated in the
base backup will include
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
- Why not initialize logid and logseg like so?:
int logid = startptr.xlogid;
int logseg = startptr.xrecoff / XLogSegSize;
Then use those in your elog? Seems cleaner to me.
Hmm. Yes. Agreed.
Marginal complaint here: int is the
Greetings,
* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote:
For now, you need to set wal_keep_segments to make it work properly,
but if you do the idea is that the tar file/stream generated in the
base backup will include all the required WAL files.
Is there some reason to not ERROR outright if
Magnus,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
mkay, I'm not going to try to make this ready for committer, but will
provide my comments on it overall. Bit difficult to review when someone
else is reviewing the base patch too. :/
I went ahead and marked it as 'waiting on author', since
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 20:13, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
However, it's not quite that simple. just adding a fork() doesn't
work on all our platforms, and you need to deal with feedback and such
between them as well.
I'd think
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
But however we do it, it will be significantly more complex than just
including the WAL. And I want to make sure we get *something* done in
time for 9.1, and then improve upon it. If we can get the improvement
into 9.1 that's great, but if not it
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
What if you start a concurrent process that begins streaming the WAL
segments just before you start the backup, and you stop it after having
stopped the backup. I would think that then, the local received files
would be complete. We would only need
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 18:45, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
What if you start a concurrent process that begins streaming the WAL
segments just before you start the backup, and you stop it after having
stopped the backup. I would
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
However, it's not quite that simple. just adding a fork() doesn't
work on all our platforms, and you need to deal with feedback and such
between them as well.
I'd think client-side, we have an existing implementation with the
parallel pg_restore
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Here's a cutdown version of the idea about including WAL in the base
backup. What I initially wanted was to introduce a way to guarantee
that the required WAL (with some sort of cutoff of course) would be
available for the backup, but I ran out of
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 23:32, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Here's a cutdown version of the idea about including WAL in the base
backup. What I initially wanted was to introduce a way to guarantee
that the required WAL (with some
28 matches
Mail list logo
