On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:41:31 +0200
Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find in attachment v5 of the patch set rebased on master after various
> conflicts.
>
> Regards,
>
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 00:04:53 +0200
> Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
>
> > Demote now keeps backends
Hi,
Please find in attachment v5 of the patch set rebased on master after various
conflicts.
Regards,
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 00:04:53 +0200
Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> Demote now keeps backends with no active xid alive. Smart mode keeps all
> backends: it waits for them to finish their
Hi,
Yet another summary + patch + tests.
Demote now keeps backends with no active xid alive. Smart mode keeps all
backends: it waits for them to finish their xact and enter read-only. Fast
mode terminate backends wit an active xid and keeps all other ones.
Backends enters "read-only" using
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:49:51 -0700
Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-07-14 17:26:37 +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:35 PM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Another summary + patch + tests.
> > >
> > > This patch supports 2PC. The
Hi,
On 2020-07-14 17:26:37 +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:35 PM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Another summary + patch + tests.
> >
> > This patch supports 2PC. The goal is to keep them safe during demote/promote
> > actions so they can be
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:35 PM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Another summary + patch + tests.
>
> This patch supports 2PC. The goal is to keep them safe during demote/promote
> actions so they can be committed/rollbacked later on a primary. See tests.
>
Wondering is it
Hi,
Another summary + patch + tests.
This patch supports 2PC. The goal is to keep them safe during demote/promote
actions so they can be committed/rollbacked later on a primary. See tests.
The checkpointer is now shutdowned after the demote shutdown checkpoint. It
removes some useless code
Hi,
Here is a small activity summary since last report.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:27:54 +0200
Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
[...]
> I hadn't time to investigate Robert's concern about shared memory for snapshot
> during recovery.
I hadn't time to dig very far, but I suppose this might be
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 16:14:38 +0900 (JST)
Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Hello.
>
> At Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:27:54 +0200, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
> wrote in
> > Here is a summary of my work during the last few days on this demote
> > approach.
> >
> > Please, find in attachment
Mmm. Fat finger..
At Fri, 26 Jun 2020 16:14:38 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> Hello.
>
> If we are going to dive so close to server shutdown, we can just
> utilize the restart-after-crash path, which we can assume to work
> reliably. The attached is a quite rough sketch, hijacking
Hello.
At Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:27:54 +0200, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
wrote in
> Here is a summary of my work during the last few days on this demote approach.
>
> Please, find in attachment v2-0001-Demote-PoC.patch and the comments in the
> commit message and as FIXME in code.
>
> The
Hi,
Here is a summary of my work during the last few days on this demote approach.
Please, find in attachment v2-0001-Demote-PoC.patch and the comments in the
commit message and as FIXME in code.
The patch is not finished or bug-free yet, I'm still not very happy with the
coding style, it
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 1:24 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> It seems like this is the core decision that needs to be taken. If
> we're willing to have these state transitions include a server restart,
> then many things get simpler. If we're not, it's gonna cost us in
> code complexity and hence bugs.
Hi,
On 2020-06-18 13:24:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > ... To go back to recovery rather than just to a read-only
> > state, I think you'd need to grapple with some additional issues that
> > patch doesn't touch, like some of the snapshot-taking stuff, but I
> > think you
Robert Haas writes:
> ... To go back to recovery rather than just to a read-only
> state, I think you'd need to grapple with some additional issues that
> patch doesn't touch, like some of the snapshot-taking stuff, but I
> think you still need to solve all of the problems that it does deal
>
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:55 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> Even with ASRO, the server restart is necessary and RO sessions are
> kicked out when demoting RO primary to a standby, i.e., during a clean
> switchover?
The ASRO patch doesn't provide a way to put a running server to be put
back into
Hi,
On 2020-06-18 21:41:45 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> ISTM that a clean switchover is possible without "ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY".
> What about the following procedure?
>
> 1. Demote the primary to a standby. Then this demoted standby is read-only.
As far as I can tell this step includes ALTER
Hi,
On 2020-06-18 12:16:27 +0200, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:14:47 -0700
> > I don't think there's a fundamental issue, but I think it needs to deal
> > with a lot more things than it does right now. StartupXLOG doesn't
> > currently deal correctly with subsystems
On 2020/06/19 0:22, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:41 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
ISTM that a clean switchover is possible without "ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY".
What about the following procedure?
1. Demote the primary to a standby. Then this demoted standby is read-only.
2. The
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:56 AM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
wrote:
> Considering the current demote patch improvement. I was considering to digg in
> the following direction:
>
> * add a new state in the state machine where all backends are idle
> * this new state forbid any new writes, the same
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:22:47 -0400
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:41 AM Fujii Masao
> wrote:
> > ISTM that a clean switchover is possible without "ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY".
> > What about the following procedure?
> >
> > 1. Demote the primary to a standby. Then this demoted
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:15:02 -0400
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:02 AM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
> wrote:
> > At some expense, Admin can already set the system as readonly from the
> > application point of view, using:
> >
> > alter system set default_transaction_read_only
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:41 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
> ISTM that a clean switchover is possible without "ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY".
> What about the following procedure?
>
> 1. Demote the primary to a standby. Then this demoted standby is read-only.
> 2. The orignal standby automatically establishes
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:02 AM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
wrote:
> At some expense, Admin can already set the system as readonly from the
> application point of view, using:
>
> alter system set default_transaction_read_only TO on;
> select pg_reload_conf();
>
> Current RW xact will finish,
On 2020/06/18 1:29, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:45 AM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
wrote:
As Amul sent a patch about "ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY"[1], with similar futur
objectives than mine, I decided to share the humble patch I am playing with to
step down an instance from
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:14:47 -0700
Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-06-17 17:44:51 +0200, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> > As Amul sent a patch about "ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY"[1], with similar futur
> > objectives than mine, I decided to share the humble patch I am playing with
> >
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:29:31 -0400
Robert Haas wrote:
[...]
> > Main difference with Amul's patch is that all backends must be disconnected
> > to process with the demote. Either we wait for them to disconnect (smart)
> > or we kill them (fast). This makes life much easier from the code point of
Hi,
On 2020-06-17 17:44:51 +0200, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> As Amul sent a patch about "ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY"[1], with similar futur
> objectives than mine, I decided to share the humble patch I am playing with to
> step down an instance from primary to standby status.
To make sure
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:45 AM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
wrote:
> As Amul sent a patch about "ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY"[1], with similar futur
> objectives than mine, I decided to share the humble patch I am playing with to
> step down an instance from primary to standby status.
Cool! This was
29 matches
Mail list logo
