On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 2:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 12:08 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > > > I'll wait for a day before marking this RfC in case anyone have
> > > > > further comments.
> > > >
> > > > Okay.
> > >
> > > Hearing nothing, done that.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
>
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 12:08 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > > I'll wait for a day before marking this RfC in case anyone have
> > > > further comments.
> > >
> > > Okay.
> >
> > Hearing nothing, done that.
>
> Thanks.
Committed with minor cosmetic changes.
--
Robert Haas
EDB:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 1:33 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:22:53 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
> in
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:42 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > > The latest version applies (almost) cleanly to the current master and
> > > works fine.
> > > I don't
At Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:22:53 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
in
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:42 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > The latest version applies (almost) cleanly to the current master and
> > works fine.
> > I don't have further comment on this.
> >
> > I'll wait for a day before marking
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:42 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> Thanks for your patience and sorry for having annoyed you.
Thank you very much for your review and inputs.
> The latest version applies (almost) cleanly to the current master and
> works fine.
> I don't have further comment on this.
At Thu, 25 Feb 2021 09:49:15 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
in
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:52 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
>
> > Recently we have mildly changed to the direction to utilize the
> > compiler warning about enum coverage in switch struct. (Maybe we need
> > another compiler option
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:52 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> Recently we have mildly changed to the direction to utilize the
> compiler warning about enum coverage in switch struct. (Maybe we need
> another compiler option that enables that check for switch'es with the
> default case, though.) In
At Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:25:57 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
in
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 2:26 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > I should have took the meaning of "confirm" wrongly. I took that as
> > "somehow determine if the recovery is to be paused". If that reading
> > is completely wrong, I
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 3:25 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > > > The reason for the checkpoint is to move to "paused" state in a
> > > > reasonable time. I think we need to mention that reason rather than
> > > > what is done here.
> > >
> > > I will do that.
I have fixed this.
> > > >
> > > > +
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 2:26 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:15:27 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
> in
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 12:39 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At Tue, 23 Feb 2021 12:03:32 +0530, Dilip Kumar
> > > wrote in
> > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at
At Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:56:41 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:15:27 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
> in
> > > After the renaming of the function, the following structure looks
> > > simpler and more natural.
> > >
> > > while (ConfirmRecoveryPaused())
> > > {
> >
At Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:15:27 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
in
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 12:39 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Tue, 23 Feb 2021 12:03:32 +0530, Dilip Kumar
> > wrote in
> > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:26 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > How about something like this?
> >
> >
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 12:39 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Tue, 23 Feb 2021 12:03:32 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
> in
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:26 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > There might be some more to say here, but those are things I notice on
> > > a first read-through.
> >
> > Okay.
At Tue, 23 Feb 2021 12:03:32 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
in
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:26 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > There might be some more to say here, but those are things I notice on
> > a first read-through.
>
> Okay.
It seems to me all the suggestions are addressed in this version.
+
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:26 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 6:07 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > Thanks for the patch. I tested the new function and it works as
> > > expected. I have no further comments on the v13 patch.
> >
> > Thanks for the review and testing.
>
> I don't see
At Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:33:32 +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote in
> I don't think that we need to include the waiting approach in
> pg_get_wal_replay_pause_state
> patch. However, Horiguchi-san's patch may be useful for some users who want
> pg_wal_replay_pause to wait until recovery gets paused instead
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:36:55 +0530
Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:20 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 8:39 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:02 AM Dilip Kumar
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't find any problem with
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 6:07 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > Thanks for the patch. I tested the new function and it works as
> > expected. I have no further comments on the v13 patch.
>
> Thanks for the review and testing.
I don't see a whole lot wrong with this patch, but I think there are
some
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:20 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 8:39 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:02 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't find any problem with this approach as well, but I personally
> > > feel that the other approach where
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 8:39 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:02 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I don't find any problem with this approach as well, but I personally
> > feel that the other approach where we don't wait in any API and just
> > return the recovery pause state is
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:02 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> I don't find any problem with this approach as well, but I personally
> feel that the other approach where we don't wait in any API and just
> return the recovery pause state is much simpler and more flexible. So
> I will make the pending
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 8:19 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 12:27:21 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote in
> > What I meant was that if we were to add waiting logic inside
> > pg_wal_replay_pause, we should also have a timeout with some default
> > value, to avoid
At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 12:27:21 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote in
> What I meant was that if we were to add waiting logic inside
> pg_wal_replay_pause, we should also have a timeout with some default
> value, to avoid pg_wal_replay_pause waiting forever in the waiting
> loop. Within that timeout,
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 11:30 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:58:30 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote in
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:54 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900
Sorry, I made a mistake here.
At Tue, 09 Feb 2021 14:55:23 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:47:58 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
> in
> > APIs the wait logic can be implemented in the application code which
> > is actually using these APIs and IMHO that will give
At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:58:30 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote in
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:54 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900 (JST)
> > > Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > If we are going to introduce
At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:47:58 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote in
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:54 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900 (JST)
> > Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> >
> > > At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:05:52 +0530, Dilip Kumar
> > > wrote in
> > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at
At Tue, 9 Feb 2021 12:23:23 +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote in
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900 (JST)
> Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > I didn't asked about the internal logical correctness, but asked about
> > *actual harm* revealed to users. I don't see any actual harm in the
> > "wrong" transition
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:54 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900 (JST)
> > Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> >
> > > At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:05:52 +0530, Dilip Kumar
> > > wrote in
> > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:19 PM
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:54 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900 (JST)
> Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
> > At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:05:52 +0530, Dilip Kumar
> > wrote in
> > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:19 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:32:46
D we should not go to the
> > PAUSE_REQUESTED without going to NOT PAUSED)
>
> I didn't asked about the internal logical correctness, but asked about
> *actual harm* revealed to users. I don't see any actual harm in the
> "wrong" transition because:
>
> 1. It is not wron
On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:58:04 +0900 (JST)
Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:05:52 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
> in
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:19 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:32:46 +0900 (JST)
> > > Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > >
> > > > At Mon, 8 Feb
At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:05:52 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote in
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:19 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:32:46 +0900 (JST)
> > Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> >
> > > At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:12:35 +0900, Yugo NAGATA
> > > wrote in
> > > > > > > I think the right
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:19 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:32:46 +0900 (JST)
> Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
> > At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:12:35 +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote
> > in
> > > > > > I think the right fix should be that the state should never go from
> > > > > > ‘paused’ to
On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:32:46 +0900 (JST)
Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:12:35 +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote in
> > > > > I think the right fix should be that the state should never go from
> > > > > ‘paused’ to ‘pause requested’ so I think pg_wal_replay_pause should
> > > > >
At Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:12:35 +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote in
> > > > I think the right fix should be that the state should never go from
> > > > ‘paused’ to ‘pause requested’ so I think pg_wal_replay_pause should
> > > > take
> > > > care of that.
> > >
> > > It makes sense to take care of this in
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:35:00 +0530
Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:18 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 07:51:22 +0530
> > Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 at 6:38 AM, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 19:27:02
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 9:35 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > > > If a user call pg_wal_replay_pause while waiting in
> > > > > RecoveryRequiresIntParameter,
> > > > > the state become 'pause requested' and this never returns to 'paused'.
> >
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 9:35 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > > If a user call pg_wal_replay_pause while waiting in
> > > > RecoveryRequiresIntParameter,
> > > > the state become 'pause requested' and this never returns to 'paused'.
> > > > Should we check recoveryPauseState in this loop as in
> > >
>
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:18 AM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 07:51:22 +0530
> Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 at 6:38 AM, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 19:27:02 +0530
> > > Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 6:44 PM
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 07:51:22 +0530
Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 at 6:38 AM, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 19:27:02 +0530
> > Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 6:44 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 at 6:38 AM, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 19:27:02 +0530
> Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 6:44 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:14 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > > wrote:
> > > > > We can not do that,
Hi,
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 19:27:02 +0530
Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 6:44 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:14 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > > > We can not do that, basically, under one lock we need to check the
> > > > state and set it to
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 6:44 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:14 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > > We can not do that, basically, under one lock we need to check the
> > > state and set it to pause. Because by the time you release the lock
> > > someone might set it to
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:14 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> > We can not do that, basically, under one lock we need to check the
> > state and set it to pause. Because by the time you release the lock
> > someone might set it to RECOVERY_NOT_PAUSED then you don't want to set
> > it to
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:06 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 6:22 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 7:20 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > > How can we do that this is not a 1 byte flag this is enum so I don't
> > > > think we can read any atomic state
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 6:22 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 7:20 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > How can we do that this is not a 1 byte flag this is enum so I don't
> > > think we can read any atomic state without a spin lock here.
> >
> > I have fixed the other comments and
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:19 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 7:46 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > How can we do that this is not a 1 byte flag this is enum so I don't
> > think we can read any atomic state without a spin lock here.
>
> I think this discussion of atomics is confused.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 7:20 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > How can we do that this is not a 1 byte flag this is enum so I don't
> > think we can read any atomic state without a spin lock here.
>
> I have fixed the other comments and the updated patch is attached.
Can we just do like below so that we
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 7:46 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> How can we do that this is not a 1 byte flag this is enum so I don't
> think we can read any atomic state without a spin lock here.
I think this discussion of atomics is confused. Let's talk about what
atomic reads and writes mean. Imagine that
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 6:16 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:58 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:28 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > Please find an updated patch which addresses these comments.
> >
> > Thanks for the patch. I tested the new function
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:58 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:28 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > Please find an updated patch which addresses these comments.
>
> Thanks for the patch. I tested the new function pg_get_wal_replay_pause_state:
>
> postgres=# select
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:58 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:28 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > Please find an updated patch which addresses these comments.
>
> Thanks for the patch. I tested the new function pg_get_wal_replay_pause_state:
>
> postgres=# select
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:28 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> Please find an updated patch which addresses these comments.
Thanks for the patch. I tested the new function pg_get_wal_replay_pause_state:
postgres=# select pg_get_wal_replay_pause_state();
pg_get_wal_replay_pause_state
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 1:41 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:59 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:24:30 +0530, Dilip Kumar
> > wrote in
> > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:33 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 3:25 PM Yugo
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:59 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:24:30 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
> in
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:33 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 3:25 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:55:42 +0530
> >
At Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:24:30 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
in
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:33 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 3:25 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:55:42 +0530
> > > Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:28 PM Dilip
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:33 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 3:25 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:55:42 +0530
> > Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:28 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:06 PM Yugo NAGATA
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:33:32 +0530
Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 3:25 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:55:42 +0530
> > Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:28 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:06 PM Yugo NAGATA
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 3:25 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:55:42 +0530
> Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:28 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:06 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:29:23 +0530
> > > >
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:55:42 +0530
Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:28 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:06 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:29:23 +0530
> > > Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:50 PM Masahiko
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:28 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:06 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:29:23 +0530
> > Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:50 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:00 AM
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:06 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:29:23 +0530
> Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:50 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:00 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 6:10 AM
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:29:23 +0530
Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:50 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:00 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 6:10 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > > wrote:
> > > > +1 to just show the recovery pause
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:50 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:00 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 6:10 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > > +1 to just show the recovery pause state in the output of
> > > pg_is_wal_replay_paused. But, should the
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:00 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 6:10 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > +1 to just show the recovery pause state in the output of
> > pg_is_wal_replay_paused. But, should the function name
> > "pg_is_wal_replay_paused" be something like
> >
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 6:10 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> +1 to just show the recovery pause state in the output of
> pg_is_wal_replay_paused. But, should the function name
> "pg_is_wal_replay_paused" be something like
> "pg_get_wal_replay_pause_state" or some other? To me, when "is" exists
> in
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 14:53:18 +0530
Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I have changed as per other functions for consistency.
Thank you for updating the patch. Here are a few comments:
(1)
- SetRecoveryPause(true);
+ SetRecoveryPause(RECOVERY_PAUSE_REQUESTED);
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 2:53 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I have changed as per other functions for consistency.
Thanks for the v7 patch. Here are some quick comments on it:
[1] I think we need to change return value from boolean to text in
documentation:
pg_is_wal_replay_paused
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:17 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 11:29 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > Some comments on the v6 patch:
>
> > > [2] Typo - it's "requested" + * 'paused requested' - if pause is
> > > reqested but recovery is not yet paused
>
> Here I meant the typo
At Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:05:19 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
in
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:42 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Sun, 24 Jan 2021 14:26:08 +0530, Dilip Kumar
> > wrote in
> > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:16 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 24,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:42 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Sun, 24 Jan 2021 14:26:08 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
> in
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:16 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:17 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 4:40 PM,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 6:12 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 5:19 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 8:59 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:20 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:35 PM Dilip
At Sun, 24 Jan 2021 14:26:08 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote
in
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:16 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:17 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 4:40 PM, Bharath Rupireddy
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:36
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 5:19 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 8:59 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:20 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:27 PM Yugo NAGATA
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:16 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:17 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 4:40 PM, Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:36 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >> > Please find the patch for the same. I haven't
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 11:29 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > Some comments on the v6 patch:
> > [2] Typo - it's "requested" + * 'paused requested' - if pause is
> > reqested but recovery is not yet paused
Here I meant the typo "reqested" in "if pause is reqested but recovery
is not yet paused"
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:17 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 4:40 PM, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:36 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> > Please find the patch for the same. I haven't added a test case for
>> > this yet. I mean we can write a test case to
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 4:40 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:36 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > Please find the patch for the same. I haven't added a test case for
> > this yet. I mean we can write a test case to pause the recovery and
> > get the status. But I am not sure
On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 4:40 PM, Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:36 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > Please find the patch for the same. I haven't added a test case for
> > this yet. I mean we can write a test case to pause the recovery
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:36 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> Please find the patch for the same. I haven't added a test case for
> this yet. I mean we can write a test case to pause the recovery and
> get the status. But I am not sure that we can really write a reliable
> test case for 'pause
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 9:56 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 2:18 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:42 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > > If it is acceptable that pg_is_wal_replay_paused() makes users wait,
> > > I'm ok for the current interface. I don't feel
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:20 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:32:31 +0530
> Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:34 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 8:12 AM, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 11:33:52 +0530
> > >> Dilip
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 2:18 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:42 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > If it is acceptable that pg_is_wal_replay_paused() makes users wait,
> > I'm ok for the current interface. I don't feel the need of
> > pg_is_wal_replay_paluse_requeseted().
>
> Another
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:42 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> If it is acceptable that pg_is_wal_replay_paused() makes users wait,
> I'm ok for the current interface. I don't feel the need of
> pg_is_wal_replay_paluse_requeseted().
Another idea could be that pg_is_wal_replay_paused() could be changed
to
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:32:31 +0530
Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:34 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 8:12 AM, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 11:33:52 +0530
> >> Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 6:49 PM Yugo NAGATA
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 3:29 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
Thanks for reviewing Bharat.
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 9:32 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > In the last patch there were some local changes which I did not add to
> > the patch and it was giving compilation warning so fixed that along
> > with
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 9:32 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> In the last patch there were some local changes which I did not add to
> the patch and it was giving compilation warning so fixed that along
> with that I have addressed your this comment as well.
Thanks for the patch. I took a look at the v5
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:34 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 8:12 AM, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 11:33:52 +0530
>> Dilip Kumar wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 6:49 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:49:43 +0530
>> > > Dilip
to
> > > actually get paused, but user have an option to cancel that. So I
> > > agree that there is currently no option to just know that recovery
> > > pause is requested without waiting for its actually get paused if it
> > > is requested. So one option is we can
is requested. So one option is we can provide an another interface as
> > you mentioned pg_is_wal_replay_paluse_requeseted(), which can just
> > return the request status. I am not sure how useful it is.
>
> If it is acceptable that pg_is_wal_replay_paused() makes users wait,
>
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 8:12 AM, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 11:33:52 +0530
> Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 6:49 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:49:43 +0530
> > > Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:35 PM Dilip
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 11:33:52 +0530
Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 6:49 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:49:43 +0530
> > Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:27 PM Yugo NAGATA
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 1:48 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 8:59 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:20 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:27 PM Yugo NAGATA
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 8:59 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:20 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:27 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:25:23 +0530
> > > >
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 6:49 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:49:43 +0530
> Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:27 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:25:23 +0530
> > > >
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 3:52 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 12:28 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > ---
> > + /* test for recovery pause if user has requested the pause */
> > + if (((volatile XLogCtlData *) XLogCtl)->recoveryPause)
> > +
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 12:28 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> ---
> + /* test for recovery pause if user has requested the pause */
> + if (((volatile XLogCtlData *) XLogCtl)->recoveryPause)
> + recoveryPausesHere(false);
> +
> + now = GetCurrentTimestamp();
> +
>
> Hmm,
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:20 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:27 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:25:23 +0530
> > > Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > However, I wonder users don't expect
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:49:43 +0530
Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:27 PM Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:25:23 +0530
> > > Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > However, I wonder users don't expect
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
