Hi,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 3:32 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Doesn't apply once more: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_37_3213.log
>
Thanks for the reminder, a rebased version is attached.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
From df56b5c7b882e781fdc0b92e7a83331f0baab094 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
tgresql.conf anyway.
>
> Besides this patch looks good and is ready for committer IMV.
>
--
Alexey Kondratov
v2-0001-Allow-providing-restore_command-as-a-command-line.patch
Description: Binary data
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 10:06 PM Alexey Kondratov
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 5:42 PM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> >
> > If we run 'pg_rewind --restore-target-wal' there must be restore_command in
> > config of target installation. But if the config is not within
> &
n already have this patch separately. I
remember that we were considering adding this option to PostgresPro,
when we did a backport of this feature.
--
Alexey Kondratov
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Companydiff --git a/src/test/perl/PostgresNode.pm b/src/test/perl/PostgresNode.pm
index db47a97d196..f7b488ed464 100644
--- a/src/test/perl/PostgresNode.pm
+++ b/src/test/perl/PostgresNode.pm
@@ -1191,19
for stable running.
That way, if it really could happen why not to just skip binding to
127.0.0/24 addresses other than 127.0.0.1 outside of Linux/Windows as
per attached patch_PostgresNode.diff?
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres
On 2021-02-03 09:37, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 10:32:19AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 06:28:57PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
> Hm, IIUC, REINDEX CONCURRENTLY doesn't use either of them. It directly uses
> index_create() with a
On 2021-01-30 05:23, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 08:56:47PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
On 2021-01-28 14:42, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
No, you are right, we are doing REINDEX with AccessExclusiveLock as
it
was before. This part is a more specific one. It only applies
On 2021-01-28 14:42, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
On 2021-01-28 00:36, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I didn't look at the patch closely enough to understand why you're
trying to do something like CLUSTER, VACUUM FULL or REINDEX without
holding full AccessExclusiveLock on the relation. But do keep in mind
On 2021-01-28 00:36, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2021-Jan-28, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
I have read more about lock levels and ShareLock should prevent any
kind of
physical modification of indexes. We already hold ShareLock doing
find_all_inheritors(), which is higher than ShareUpdateExclusiveLock
On 2021-01-27 06:14, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 01:00:50AM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
In the new 0002 I moved ACL check to the upper level, i.e.
ExecReindex(),
and removed expensive text generation in test. Not touched yet some of
your
previously raised concerns. Also
On 2021-01-26 09:58, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:11:38PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
I updated comment with CCI info, did pgindent run and renamed new
function
to SetRelationTableSpace(). New patch is attached.
[...]
Yeah, all these checks we complicated from
On 2021-01-25 11:07, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:07:02PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
I have updated patches accordingly and also simplified tablespaceOid
checks
and assignment in the newly added SetRelTableSpace(). Result is
attached as
two separate patches for an ease
On 2021-01-22 00:26, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:48:08PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
Attached is a new patch set of first two patches, that should resolve
all
the issues raised before (ACL, docs, tests) excepting TOAST. Double
thanks
for suggestion to add more tests
On 2021-01-21 17:06, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
On 2021-01-21 04:41, Michael Paquier wrote:
There are no tests for partitioned tables, aka we'd want to make sure
that the new partitioned index is on the correct tablespace, as well
as all its leaves. It may be better to have at least two levels
On 2021-01-21 04:41, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 03:34:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2021-Jan-20, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
Ugh, forgot to attach the patches. Here they are.
Yeah, looks reasonable.
+
+ if (changed)
+ /* Record dependency
On 2021-01-20 21:08, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
On 2021-01-20 18:54, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2021-Jan-20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2021-Jan-20, Michael Paquier wrote:
> +/*
> + * This is mostly duplicating ATExecSetTableSpaceNoStorage,
> + * which should maybe be factored out to
ions. I am going to look closer on it tomorrow.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
email to the same thread even with different subject.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Companydiff --git a/src/include/catalog/index.h b/src/include/catalog/index.h
index 9904a76387..43cfdeaa6b 100644
--- a/src/include/catalog/index.h
On 2020-12-30 17:59, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 5:20 PM Alexey Kondratov
wrote:
On 2020-12-30 09:10, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
I still have some doubts that it is worth of allowing to call
postgres_fdw_disconnect() in the explicit transaction block, since it
adds a lot
l be corrected later by pg_indent, but still. In
this comment section following points 1) and 2) have a different
combination of tabs/spaces.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres CompanyFrom 82b82b901e8f0ca84e1b21454a3b68f4fd8f0016 Mon Sep 1
:
* we have ReindexOptions, but VacuumParams
* and ReindexOptions->flags, but VacuumParams->options
And the last one, you have used bits32 for Cluster/ReindexOptions, but
left VacuumParams->options as int. Maybe we should also change it to
bits32 for consistency?
Regards
--
Alexey
some reason I have mixed these refactorings
separated by a dozen of versions...
Thanks
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
all a
non-transactional by its nature function in the transaction block.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
e ideas going back and forth and back.
Yes, we have moved a bit from my original patch set in the thread with
all this refactoring. However, all the consequent patches are heavily
depend on this interface, so let us decide first on the proposed
refactoring.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
stantly move indexes to the global tablespace, so it
is also OK to put this check deeper into guts.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Companydiff --git a/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c b/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
index a27f8f9d83..0
--- ex-primary may accept some xacts after promotion of new
primary, so their history diverges and old primary should be rewound
before being returned as standby (subscriber).
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
9ee to use
'utility_option_list' instead of 'common_option_list'.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres CompanyFrom ac3b77aec26a40016784ada9dab8b9059f424fa4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 20:35:41 -0500
Subje
[MAXPG_LSNLEN + 1];
+
+ snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), LSN_FORMAT, LSN_FORMAT_ARG(lsn));
+
+ return pstrdup(buf);
+}
Would it be a bit more straightforward if we palloc buf initially and
just return a pointer instead of doing pstrdup()?
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Profes
connections? I mean,
that it would be a nice to have hook from the extensibility perspective,
but postgres_fdw_disconnect() still makes sense, since it does a very
narrow and specific job.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
On 2020-11-24 06:52, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
Thanks for the review comments.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:57 PM Alexey Kondratov
wrote:
> v1-0001-postgres_fdw-function-to-discard-cached-connections.patch
This patch looks pretty straightforward for me, but there are some
things to be addres
ro. It is set to 1 by
begin_remote_xact() called by GetConnection(), so everything seems to be
fine.
Otherwise, both patches seem to be working as expected. I am going to
have a look on the last two patches a bit later.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
On 2020-11-19 07:11, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:32 PM Alexey Kondratov
wrote:
Thanks! I will make separate patches and post them soon.
>> Attached is a small POC patch, which implements this contrib-level
>> postgres_fdw.keep_connections GUC. What
On 2020-11-18 16:39, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
Thanks for the interest shown!
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 1:07 AM Alexey Kondratov
wrote:
Regarding the initial issue I prefer point #3, i.e. foreign server
option. It has a couple of benefits IMO: 1) it may be set separately
on
per foreign server
vel option by
setting this GUC on per session basis.
Attached is a small POC patch, which implements this contrib-level
postgres_fdw.keep_connections GUC. What do you think?
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACUFNydy0uo0JL9A1isHQ9pFe1Fgqa_HVanfG6F8g21nSQ%40mail.gmail.com
Regards
On 2020-11-11 06:59, Tom Lane wrote:
Alexey Kondratov writes:
After looking on the autoprewarm code more closely I have realised
that
this 'double dump' issues was not an issues at all. I have just
misplaced a debug elog(), so its second output in the log was only
indicating that we
On 2020-11-09 23:25, Tom Lane wrote:
Alexey Kondratov writes:
On 2020-11-09 21:53, Tom Lane wrote:
0002 seems like a pretty clear bug fix, though I wonder if this is
exactly
what we want to do going forward. It seems like a very large
fraction of
the callers of TimestampDifference would
On 2020-11-09 21:53, Tom Lane wrote:
Alexey Kondratov writes:
After fixing this issue I have noticed that it still dumps blocks
twice
at each timeout (here I set autoprewarm_interval to 15s):
...
This happens because at timeout time we were using continue, but
actually we still have to wait
think?
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres CompanyFrom 6d4bab7f21c3661dd4dd5a0de7e097b1de3f642c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alexey Kondratov
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2020 19:24:55 +0300
Subject: [PATCH v1 3/3] pg_prewarm: refactor autoprewarm
On 2020-09-18 00:54, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 01:36:16PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
Thank you for the link!
After a quick look on the Sawada-san's patch set I think that there
are two
major differences:
1. There is a built-in foreign xacts resolver in the [1], which
On 2020-09-17 15:27, Alexander Kukushkin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 14:04, Alexey Kondratov
wrote:
With --restore-target-wal pg_rewind is trying to call restore_command
on
its own and it can happen at two stages:
1) When pg_rewind is trying to find the last checkpoint preceding
files inside PGDATA does not look like a good
idea for me, I do not see anything criminal in skipping non-existing
file, when executing a file map by pg_rewind.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
On 2020-09-09 20:29, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/09/09 2:00, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
According to the Sawada-san's v25 0002 the logic is pretty much the
same there:
+2. Pre-Commit phase (1st phase of two-phase commit)
+3. Commit locally
+Once we've prepared all of them, commit
s parenthesized option list. All the checks and validations are
performed at the corresponding command code.
This analyze_keyword is actually doing only an ANALYZE word
normalization if it's used as an option. Why it could be harmful?
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
On 2020-09-09 08:35, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 02:00, Alexey Kondratov
wrote:
On 2020-09-08 14:48, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> IIUC, yes, the information required for automatic resolution is
> WAL-logged and the standby tries to resolve those orphan transactions
> fr
On 2020-09-09 11:45, Andrey V. Lepikhov wrote:
On 9/8/20 8:34 PM, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
On 2020-09-08 17:00, Amit Langote wrote:
wrote:
On 2020-09-08 10:34, Amit Langote wrote:
Another ambiguous part of the refactoring was in changing
InitResultRelInfo() arguments:
@@ -1278,6 +1280,7
On 2020-09-08 14:48, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/09/08 19:36, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
On 2020-09-08 05:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/09/05 3:31, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
Attached is a patch, which implements a plain 2PC in the
postgres_fdw and adds a GUC 'postgres_fdw.use_twophase'. Also
On 2020-09-08 17:00, Amit Langote wrote:
Hi Alexey,
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:29 PM Alexey Kondratov
wrote:
On 2020-09-08 10:34, Amit Langote wrote:
> Any thoughts on the taking out the refactoring changes out of the main
> patch as I suggested?
>
+1 for splitting the patch. It w
On 2020-09-08 05:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/09/05 3:31, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
Attached is a patch, which implements a plain 2PC in the postgres_fdw
and adds a GUC 'postgres_fdw.use_twophase'. Also it solves these
errors handling issues above and tries to add proper comments
everywhere
costly.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
C 'postgres_fdw.use_twophase'. Also it solves these errors
handling issues above and tries to add proper comments everywhere. I
think, that 0003 should be rebased on the top of it, or it could be a
first patch in the set, since it may be used independently. What do you
think?
Regards
--
Alexey
. That
way, I'd be glad if Michael could reword his explanation, so it'd more
clear for me as well.
BTW, I've started doing a review of the last patch set yesterday and
will try to post some comments later.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
On 2020-07-28 03:33, Andrey Lepikhov wrote:
27.07.2020 21:34, Alexey Kondratov пишет:
Hi Andrey,
On 2020-07-23 09:23, Andrey V. Lepikhov wrote:
On 7/16/20 2:14 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
Amit Langote
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Version 5 of the patch. With changes caused
gres binaries
should be available in the PATH). It works well with master and fails
with your patch applied.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company#!/usr/bin/env sh
pg_ctl -D node1 stop > /dev/null
pg_ctl -D node2 stop > /dev/
On 2020-07-16 19:35, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 8:56 PM Andrey Lepikhov
wrote:
On 7/16/20 9:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:48 AM Alexey Kondratov
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Some real-life test queries sh
On 2020-07-16 14:56, Andrey Lepikhov wrote:
On 7/16/20 9:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 9:02 PM Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:12 AM Alexey Kondratov
wrote:
On 2020-07-14 15:27, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:48 AM Alexey Kondratov
On 2020-07-14 15:27, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:48 AM Alexey Kondratov
wrote:
I built a simple two node multi-tenant schema for tests, which can be
easily set up with attached scripts. It creates three tables
(companies,
users, documents) distributed over two nodes
f04882a3
[3]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAFT%2BaqL1Tt0qfYqjHH%2BshwPoW8qdFjpJ8vBR5ABoXJDUcHyN1w%40mail.gmail.com
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres CompanyDROP TABLE IF EXISTS companies CASCADE;
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS
On 2020-06-23 04:18, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:18:58PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
Things get worse when we allow specifying an older LSN, since it has a
higher chances to be at the horizon of deletion by checkpointer.
Anyway, if
I get it correctly, with a current
On 2020-06-19 21:57, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/06/19 23:20, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
On 2020-06-19 03:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 03:39:09PM +0300, Vyacheslav Makarov wrote:
If the WAL segment for the specified restart_lsn (STOP_LSN of the
backup)
exists
.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20180626071305.GH31353%40paquier.xyz
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
On 2020-06-16 10:27, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 08:57:17PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
New test reproduces this issue well. Left it running for a couple of
hours
in repeat and it seems to be stable.
Thanks for testing. I have been thinking about the minimum xmin
rt_lsn_pre);
we can safely use $current_lsn used for pg_replication_slot_advance(),
since reatart_lsn is set as is there. It may make the test a bit simpler
as well.
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
imming is
worth to be tested more thoroughly.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Companydiff --git a/src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c b/src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c
index 1b929a603e..8e543e276f 100644
--- a/src/backend/repli
14b-9dc9-daae-138033db298c%40postgrespro.ru
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
On 2020-04-10 05:25, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2020/04/10 3:16, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
Just another idea in case if one will still decide to go with a
separate statement + BEGIN integration instead of a function. We could
use parenthesized options list here. This is already implemented
://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200401060334.GB142683%40paquier.xyz
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
On 2020-04-06 21:44, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:43:46PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
+/* XXX: reusing reindex_option_list */
+ | CLUSTER opt_verbose '(' reindex_option_list ')'
qualified_name
cluster_index_specification
Could we actually simply
and there now, but it may
reduce a further reusability of these internal routines in the future.
XXX: for cluster/vacuum, it might be more friendly to check before
clustering
the table, rather than after clustering and re-indexing.
Yes, I think it would be much more user-frie
to be
equivalent to pg_sleep, doesn't it?
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
for doing that! And to all others who participated.
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
On 2020-03-30 21:34, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 09:02:22PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
Hmm, I went through the well known to me SQL commands in Postgres and
a bit
more. Parenthesized options list is mostly used in two common cases:
There's also ANALYZE(VERBOSE), REINDEX
x for VACUUM, but with limitation for VACUUM FULL
of the entire database + TABLESPACE change
3) Change TABLESPACE to a fully reserved word
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
se 'restoreCommand' here as in the header for
tidiness.
I have left 0001 intact, but fixed all these small remarks in the 0002.
Please, find it attached.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
From f94990da84844841a35e80ca30e2b3d8c3bd
proposed and attached is a small
patch, that introduces xlogarchive.h.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Companydiff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/timeline.c b/src/backend/access/transam/timeline.c
index 860a996414..d683af377f
. Maybe I will manage it this time.
I will take into account all your text edits as well.
Thanks
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
On 2020-03-26 02:40, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 08:08:46PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
On 09.03.2020 23:04, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 08:53:04AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 03:35:27PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
tests
Hi Justin,
On 09.03.2020 23:04, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 08:53:04AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 03:35:27PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
Anyway, new version is attached. It is rebased in order to resolve conflicts
with a recent fix of REINDEX
. Is it there for historical
reasons only or something else?
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
works just fine.
[1]
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/0a42a2e9/src/backend/tcop/postgres.c#L1178
[2]
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/0a42a2e9/src/backend/tcop/postgres.c#L1226
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
On 05.03.2020 09:24, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 08:14:20PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
- I did not actually get why you don't check for a missing command
when using wait_result_is_any_signal. In this case I'd think that it
is better to exit immediately as follow-up calls
On 04.03.2020 10:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 08:59:49PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
All other remarks look clear for me, so I fix them in the next patch
version, thanks.
Already done as per the attached, with a new routine named
getRestoreCommand() and more done
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
DEX CONCURRENTLY + temp relations,
and includes this small comment fix.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From d2b7a5fa2e11601759b47af0c142a7824ef907a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alexey Kondratov
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019
On 2020-02-28 09:43, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 06:29:34PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
On 2020-02-27 16:41, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
>
> New version of the patch is attached. Thanks again for your review.
>
Last patch (v18) got a conflict with one of toda
On 2020-02-27 16:41, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
New version of the patch is attached. Thanks again for your review.
Last patch (v18) got a conflict with one of today commits (05d8449e73).
Rebased version is attached.
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
er.
I think that it would be saner to check the return status of
ConstructRestoreCommand() in xlogarchive.c as a sanity check, with an
elog(ERROR) if not 0, as that should never happen.
Added.
New version of the patch is attached. Thanks again for your review.
Re
git format-patch format, but yours were in a
slightly different format, so I only was able to apply them with git am
--patch-format=stgit.
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From fa2fc359dd9852afc608663fa32733e800652ffa Mon Sep 1
ersion is attached. Do you have any other comments or objections?
Regards
--
Alexey
From 7af0b3642f6218c764eee361e013f24bfb43ffbe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alexey Kondratov
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 20:08:13 +0300
Subject: [PATCH v14] pg_rewind: Add options to restore WAL files from archive
On 30.01.2020 05:19, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 05:10:20PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
Looks perfect.
Thanks Horiguchi-san and others. Applied and back-patched down to
11.
Great! Thanks for getting this done.
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https
for VACUUM, constraint check or checkpoint itself.
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
On 09.01.2020 09:36, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
Hello.
At Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:12:16 +0300, Alexey Kondratov
wrote in
On 2019-12-26 16:35, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
Another concern is that ReplicationSlotIsDirty is added with the only
one user. It also cannot be used by SaveSlotToPath due
On 2019-12-02 11:21, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 08:47:06PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
Thus, I cannot get your point correctly here. Can you, please,
elaborate a
little bit more your concerns?
The case of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is pretty simple, because a new
relation
On 2019-12-26 16:35, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
Another concern is that ReplicationSlotIsDirty is added with the only
one user. It also cannot be used by SaveSlotToPath due to the
simultaneous usage of both flags dirty and just_dirtied there.
In that way, I hope that we should call
On 26.12.2019 11:33, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Wed, 25 Dec 2019 20:28:04 +0300, Alexey Kondratov
wrote in
Yep, it helps with physical replication slot persistence after
advance, but the whole validation (moveto <= endlsn) does not make
sense for me. The value of moveto should be >
On 25.12.2019 16:51, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
On 25.12.2019 07:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
As the result I think what is needed there is just checking if the
returned lsn is equal or larger than moveto. Doen't the following
change work?
- if (XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(endlsn))
+ if (moveto
On 25.12.2019 07:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Tue, 24 Dec 2019 20:12:32 +0300, Alexey Kondratov
wrote in
I dig into the code and it happens because of this if statement:
/* Update the on disk state when lsn was updated. */
if (XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(endlsn
pg_logical_replication_slot_advance and
pg_physical_replication_slot_advance return InvalidXLogRecPtr if
no-op.
What do you think?
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
P.S. CCed Simon and Michael as they are the last who seriously touched
, but
still. We already have hundreds of GUCs and it is easy for a user to
build a sub-optimal configuration, so does this overprotection make sense?
Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
On 01.12.2019 5:57, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 03:08:22PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
As Alvaro correctly pointed in the nearby thread [1], we've got an
interference regarding -R command line argument. I agree that it's a good
idea to reserve -R for recovery configuration
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
