Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-31 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:11 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 8/31/17 4:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> Thanks for the new version. This looks fine to me. >> >> Committed to REL9_6_STABLE with

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-31 Thread David Steele
On 8/31/17 4:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Thanks for the new version. This looks fine to me. > > Committed to REL9_6_STABLE with minor wordsmithing. The edits look good to me. Thanks, Robert! -- -David

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-31 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Thanks for the new version. This looks fine to me. Committed to REL9_6_STABLE with minor wordsmithing. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-30 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:02 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 8/29/17 9:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele wrote: >>> >>> Attached is the 9.6 patch. It required a bit more work in func.sgml >>> than I was

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-30 Thread David Steele
Hi Michael, Thanks for reviewing! On 8/29/17 9:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele wrote: >> >> Attached is the 9.6 patch. It required a bit more work in func.sgml >> than I was expecting so have a close look at that. The rest

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-29 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele wrote: > Hi Robert, > > On 8/25/17 4:03 PM, David Steele wrote: >> On 8/25/17 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele >>> wrote: No problem. I'll base it on your

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-29 Thread David Steele
Hi Robert, On 8/25/17 4:03 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 8/25/17 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele >> wrote: >>> No problem.  I'll base it on your commit to capture any changes you >>> made. >> >> Thanks, but you incorporated

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-25 Thread David Steele
On 8/25/17 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele wrote: No problem. I'll base it on your commit to capture any changes you made. Thanks, but you incorporated everything I wanted in response to my first review -- so I didn't tweak it

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-25 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele wrote: > No problem. I'll base it on your commit to capture any changes you made. Thanks, but you incorporated everything I wanted in response to my first review -- so I didn't tweak it any further. -- Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-25 Thread David Steele
On 8/25/17 3:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:10 PM, David Steele wrote: >> >> Robert said he would commit this so I expect he'll do that if he doesn't >> have any objections to the changes. >> >> Robert, if you would prefer me to submit this to the CF

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-25 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:10 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 8/24/17 7:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> True as well. The patch looks good to me. If a committer does not show >> up soon, it may be better to register that in the CF and wait. I am >> not sure that adding an

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-25 Thread David Steele
On 8/24/17 7:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > True as well. The patch looks good to me. If a committer does not show > up soon, it may be better to register that in the CF and wait. I am > not sure that adding an open item is suited, as docs have the same > problem on 9.6. Robert said he would

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-24 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:49 PM, David Steele wrote: > Thanks for reviewing! Sorry for the late response, those eclipses don't > just chase themselves... That's quite something to see. > On 8/20/17 10:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:35 AM, David

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-24 Thread David Steele
Hi Michael, Thanks for reviewing! Sorry for the late response, those eclipses don't just chase themselves... On 8/20/17 10:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:35 AM, David Steele wrote: > > + Prior to PostgreSQL 9.6, this > Markup ? Fixed. > +

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-20 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:35 AM, David Steele wrote: > This patch should be sufficient for 10/11 but will need some minor > changes for 9.6 to remove the reference to wait_for_archive. Note that > this patch ignores Michael's patch [2] to create WAL history files on a >

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-18 Thread David Steele
On 8/18/17 3:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > If you update the patch I'll apply it to 11 and 10. Attached is the updated patch. I didn't like the vague "there can be some issues on the server if it crashes during the backup" so I added a new paragraph at the appropriate step to give a more

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:58 PM, David Steele wrote: > OK, but I was trying to make it very clear that this backup method only > works on a primary. If you think the text is in the first paragraph is > enough then I'm willing to go with that, though. Yeah, I think the text

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-18 Thread David Steele
Robert, Thanks for reviewing! On 8/18/17 2:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > - the next WAL segment. The reason for the switch is to arrange for > + the next WAL segment when run on a primary. On a standby you can call > + pg_switch_wal on the primary to perform a manual > + switch.

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-18 Thread Robert Haas
- the next WAL segment. The reason for the switch is to arrange for + the next WAL segment when run on a primary. On a standby you can call + pg_switch_wal on the primary to perform a manual + switch. + The reason for the switch is to arrange for Tacking on "when run on a

[HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

2017-08-17 Thread David Steele
As discussed in [1] our low-level backup documentation does not quite match the actual behavior of the functions on primary vs. standby. Since it appears we have decided that the remaining behavioral differences after 52f8a59dd953c68 are bugs in the documentation, the attached is a first pass at