Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

Hi, this patch was waiting on author without any update/response since early December, so I've marked it as returned with feedback. Feel free to re-submit an updated version to a future CF. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

Thanks for the new version. At Sun, 8 Dec 2019 04:03:01 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in > On 11/21/19 1:46 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 2019-11-08 05:00, Grigory Smolkin wrote: > I`ve tested it and have some thoughts/concerns: > > 1. Recovery should report the exact reason why it has

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

On 11/21/19 1:46 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 2019-11-08 05:00, Grigory Smolkin wrote: Attached new patch revision, now end of available WAL is defined as the fact of missing required WAL. In case of standby, the end of WAL is defined as 2 consecutive switches of WAL source, that didn`t

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

On 2019-11-08 05:00, Grigory Smolkin wrote: Attached new patch revision, now end of available WAL is defined as the fact of missing required WAL. In case of standby, the end of WAL is defined as 2 consecutive switches of WAL source, that didn`t provided requested record. In case of streaming

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

At Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:08:47 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in > > On 11/8/19 7:00 AM, Grigory Smolkin wrote: > > > > On 11/7/19 4:36 PM, Grigory Smolkin wrote: > >> I gave it some thought and now think that prohibiting recovery_target > >> 'latest' and standby was a bad idea. > >> All

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

At Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:08:47 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in > While working on it, I stumbled upon something strange: > > why DisownLatch(>recoveryWakeupLatch) is called before > ReadRecord(xlogreader, LastRec, PANIC, false) ? > Isn`t this latch may be accessed in WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable()

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

On 11/8/19 7:00 AM, Grigory Smolkin wrote: On 11/7/19 4:36 PM, Grigory Smolkin wrote: On 11/7/19 12:56 PM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:22:28 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in On 11/7/19 8:36 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 02:28:39 +0300, Grigory Smolkin

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

On 11/7/19 4:36 PM, Grigory Smolkin wrote: On 11/7/19 12:56 PM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:22:28 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in On 11/7/19 8:36 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 02:28:39 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in On 11/6/19 1:55 PM, Grigory

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

On 11/7/19 12:56 PM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:22:28 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in On 11/7/19 8:36 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 02:28:39 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in On 11/6/19 1:55 PM, Grigory Smolkin wrote: On 11/6/19 12:56 PM, Fujii Masao

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:22:28 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in > > On 11/7/19 8:36 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 02:28:39 +0300, Grigory Smolkin > > wrote in > >> On 11/6/19 1:55 PM, Grigory Smolkin wrote: > >>> On 11/6/19 12:56 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > What happens if

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

On 11/7/19 8:36 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 02:28:39 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in On 11/6/19 1:55 PM, Grigory Smolkin wrote: On 11/6/19 12:56 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 6:33 PM Grigory Smolkin wrote: On 11/6/19 10:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 02:28:39 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in > On 11/6/19 1:55 PM, Grigory Smolkin wrote: > > > > On 11/6/19 12:56 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 6:33 PM Grigory Smolkin > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 11/6/19 10:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > This seems to

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

On 11/6/19 1:55 PM, Grigory Smolkin wrote: On 11/6/19 12:56 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 6:33 PM Grigory Smolkin wrote: On 11/6/19 10:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: This seems to also be related to this discussion:

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

On 11/6/19 12:56 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 6:33 PM Grigory Smolkin wrote: On 11/6/19 10:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: This seems to also be related to this discussion: Yes, in a way.

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 6:33 PM Grigory Smolkin wrote: > > > On 11/6/19 10:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > This seems to also be related to this discussion: > > > > Yes, in a way. Strengthening current lax

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

On 11/6/19 10:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: This seems to also be related to this discussion: Yes, in a way. Strengthening current lax recovery behavior is a very good idea. I like this idea. I don't

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

This seems to also be related to this discussion: I like this idea. I don't like the name "latest". What does that mean? Other documentation talks about the "end of the archive". What does that mean? It

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

Attached new version of a patch with TAP test. On 11/5/19 11:51 AM, Grigory Smolkin wrote: Thank you for you interest in this topic! On 11/5/19 10:41 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: Hello. At Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:03:38 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in Hello, hackers! I`d like to propose a new

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

Thank you for you interest in this topic! On 11/5/19 10:41 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: Hello. At Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:03:38 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in Hello, hackers! I`d like to propose a new argument for recovery_target parameter, which will stand to recovering until all available

Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"

Hello. At Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:03:38 +0300, Grigory Smolkin wrote in > Hello, hackers! > > I`d like to propose a new argument for recovery_target parameter, > which will stand to recovering until all available WAL segments are > applied. > > Current PostgreSQL recovery default behavior(when no

[proposal] recovery_target "latest"

Hello, hackers! I`d like to propose a new argument for recovery_target parameter, which will stand to recovering until all available WAL segments are applied. Current PostgreSQL recovery default behavior(when no recovery target is provided) does exactly that, but there are several