On 27 December 2017 at 11:39, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 08:47:20AM +0100, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
>> Changed the block from a note to a caution,
>
> Thanks for the new version.
>
> - "You might also need to commit or roll back old prepared
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 08:47:20AM +0100, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
> Changed the block from a note to a caution,
Thanks for the new version.
- "You might also need to commit or roll back old prepared transactions.")));
+ "You might also need to commit or roll back old prepared transactions, or
On 23 December 2017 at 11:58, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 07:55:19AM +0100, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
>> On 21 December 2017 at 05:32, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Don't you want to put that in its own block? That's
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 07:55:19AM +0100, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
> On 21 December 2017 at 05:32, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>
> > Don't you want to put that in its own block? That's rather
> > important not to miss for administrators.
>
> I didn't want to add yet
On 21 December 2017 at 05:32, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Don't you want to put that in its own block? That's rather
> important not to miss for administrators.
I didn't want to add yet another block on that documentation page,
as it already has 2, however it may be
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Feike Steenbergen
wrote:
> As far as I know the issue only occurs for stale replication slots for
> logical decoding but not for physical replication, is that correct?
Yeah, I recall something similar.
@@ -255,7 +255,9 @@ $
On 20 December 2017 at 06:22, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> prepare_transaction.sgml has a "Caution" block mentioning that it is
> unwise to keep 2PC transactions unfinished for a too-long time as it
> interferes with VACUUM. In doc/src/sgml/logicaldecoding.sgml, it would
>
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Feike Steenbergen
> wrote:
>> While doing some wraparound debugging, I saw the hint regarding upcoming
>> wraparound did not include the problem of having a
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Feike Steenbergen
wrote:
> While doing some wraparound debugging, I saw the hint regarding upcoming
> wraparound did not include the problem of having a stale replication
> slot (which I'm actually using to force wraparound issues).
>
>