On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 14:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Small patch to set ps display during recovery, so we can see the current
> > WAL file being processed in both crash and archive recovery.
>
> Hmm, not right there, because we don't know that the file a
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 03:00:54PM +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Here is a patch to get memory management to thread-safe.
> The auto_allocs global variable is split into per-thread variables
> and accessed separately in each thread.
Thanks. Committed to CVS HEAD.
> * Release all prepared state
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 14:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, not right there, because we don't know that the file actually
>> exists yet. Applied with modifications ...
> Double hmmm, that means when we are waiting for file X in pg_standby the
> ps display
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 14:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hmm, not right there, because we don't know that the file actually
> >> exists yet. Applied with modifications ...
>
> > Double hmmm, that means
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Perhaps "fetching XXX" vs "restoring XXX"?
Not sure if I read you right, so one more time for clarity:
IMHO wording should be
"restoring X" before we send to archive to get file (archive only)
"recovering X" once we have the file (archive
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Perhaps "fetching XXX" vs "restoring XXX"?
> Not sure if I read you right, so one more time for clarity:
> IMHO wording should be
> "restoring X" before we send to archive to get file (archive only)
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 11:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Perhaps "fetching XXX" vs "restoring XXX"?
>
> > Not sure if I read you right, so one more time for clarity:
>
> > IMHO wording should be
> >
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 11:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I like "fetching" or "retrieving" for
>> the activity of getting a WAL segment from an archive, because in cases
>> where the activity takes long enough to be noticeable, it's probably
>> because you are
On 9/29/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we need more than one person's request to add this function.
Well, I don't expect it would get requested. Most DBAs would likely
look for the function in the docs, see it's not there and then just
implement it themselves. Obviously i
