On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Just for fun, I implemented a toy background worker tonight using the
new bgworker framework. Generally, it went well, and I'm pleased with
the design of the new facility. However, I did notice one oddity. I
Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Afaik we don't have any debugging utility to dump the pg_filenode.map
contents?
Hardly need one ... od -t d4 $PGDATA/global/pg_filenode.map
is readable enough, though it does leave you still having to
map the numeric OIDs back to
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 07:49:51PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
These locks are all SSI-related and they're all really hot. Lock 28
is SerializableXactHashLock and lock 29 is
SerializableFinishedListLock; both are acquired an order of magnitude
more often than any non-SSI lock, and cause two
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 05:35 +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
And here you go. I decided to be verbose with the comments as it's
easier to delete a comment to write one. I also left in a huge jumble
of macros to calculate the contents
On 10 April 2013 09:01, Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at wrote:
Using SIMD for WAL is not a requirement at all; I just thought it might
be a nice benefit for non-checksum-enabled users in some later release.
I think we should first deal with using it for page checksums and if
future versions
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:49 PM Dang Minh Huong wrote:
To: Amit Kapila
Subject: Re: [BUGS] replication_timeout not effective
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:49 PM
Hi,
Thank you for your soon reply.
I'm trying to set the network timeout related parameters to terminate
it.
# i've
it's one of the reasons why a fresh base backup is required when starting
old master as new standby? If yes, I agree with you. I've often heard the
complaints about a backup when restarting new standby. That's really big
problem.
I think Fujii Masao is on the same page.
In case of syncrep the
Hi Amit,
Thank you for your consideration.
My project not allows to use 9.2 or 9.3.
In 9.3, it sounds replication_timeout is replaced by wal_sender_timeout.
So if it is solved in 9.3 i think there is a way to terminate it.
I hope it is fixed in 9.1 soon
Regards,
2013/04/10 18:33、Amit Kapila
(5) *The master then forces a write of the data page related to this
transaction.*
*Sorry, this is incorrect. Whenever the master writes the data page it
checks that the WAL record is written in standby till that LSN. *
*
*
While master is waiting to force a write (point 5) for this data page,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 10 April 2013 09:01, Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at wrote:
Using SIMD for WAL is not a requirement at all; I just thought it might
be a nice benefit for non-checksum-enabled users in some later release.
I think we
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:42 PM Samrat Revagade wrote:
(5) The master then forces a write of the data page related to this
transaction.
Sorry, this is incorrect. Whenever the master writes the data page it
checks that the WAL record is written in standby till that LSN.
While master is
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Dang Minh Huong kakalo...@gmail.com wrote:
In 9.3, it sounds replication_timeout is replaced by wal_sender_timeout.
So if it is solved in 9.3 i think there is a way to terminate it.
I hope it is fixed in 9.1 soon
Hmm. He said that,
But in my
On 2013-04-10 22:38:07 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Dang Minh Huong kakalo...@gmail.com wrote:
In 9.3, it sounds replication_timeout is replaced by wal_sender_timeout.
So if it is solved in 9.3 i think there is a way to terminate it.
I hope it
Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com writes:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:42 PM Samrat Revagade wrote:
Sorry, this is incorrect. Streaming replication continuous, master is not
waiting, whenever the master writes the data page it checks that the WAL
record is written in standby till that LSN.
On 2013-04-10 10:10:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com writes:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:42 PM Samrat Revagade wrote:
Sorry, this is incorrect. Streaming replication continuous, master is not
waiting, whenever the master writes the data page it checks that the
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 01:15:12PM +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
This work needs to happen now, since once the checksum algorithm is set we
won't easily be able to change it.
The page checksum algorithm needs to be decided now, but WAL CRCs and
full page writes can be changed in 9.4 and don't
On 04/10/2013 09:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
IOW, I wouldn't consider skipping the rsync even if I had a feature
like this.
Totally. Out in the field, we consider the old database corrupt the
moment we fail over. There is literally no way to verify the safety of
any data along the broken chain,
Thanks all,
(2013/04/10 22:55), Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-04-10 22:38:07 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Dang Minh Huong kakalo...@gmail.com wrote:
In 9.3, it sounds replication_timeout is replaced by wal_sender_timeout.
So if it is solved in 9.3 i
On 2013-04-10 23:37:44 +0900, Dang Minh Huong wrote:
Thanks all,
(2013/04/10 22:55), Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-04-10 22:38:07 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Dang Minh Huong kakalo...@gmail.com
wrote:
In 9.3, it sounds replication_timeout is
Hi all,
I'd like to introduce myself to the dev community. I am Shuai Fan, a
student from Dalian University of Technology, DLUT , for short, China. And I am
interested in working with PostgreSQL project in GSOC2013.
I'm interested in the idea Rewrite (add) pg_dump and pg_restore
2013/04/10 23:44、Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com のメッセージ:
On 2013-04-10 23:37:44 +0900, Dang Minh Huong wrote:
Thanks all,
(2013/04/10 22:55), Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-04-10 22:38:07 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Dang Minh Huong
Marc Cousin escribió:
On 20/03/2013 16:33, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Ah. The reason for this problem is that the statement start time (which
also sets the transaction start time, when it's the first statement) is
set by postgres.c, not the transaction-control functions in xact.c. So
you'd need
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
worker_spi.naptime is the naptime between two checks.
worker_spi.total_workers is the number of workers to launch at
postmaster start time. The first one can change with a sighup, the last
one obviously needs a restart.
Many thanks. Pushed as
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Shaun Thomas stho...@optionshouse.com wrote:
On 04/10/2013 09:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
IOW, I wouldn't consider skipping the rsync even if I had a feature
like this.
Totally. Out in the field, we consider the old database corrupt the moment
we fail over.
On 04/10/2013 11:40 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Strange. If this is really true, shared disk failover solution is
fundamentally broken because the standby needs to start up with the
shared corrupted database at the failover.
How so? Shared disk doesn't use replication. The point I was trying to
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-04-10 10:10:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com writes:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:42 PM Samrat Revagade wrote:
Sorry, this is incorrect. Streaming replication continuous,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Shaun Thomas stho...@optionshouse.com wrote:
On 04/10/2013 11:40 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Strange. If this is really true, shared disk failover solution is
fundamentally broken because the standby needs to start up with the
shared corrupted database at the
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Shaun Thomas stho...@optionshouse.com wrote:
On 04/10/2013 11:40 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Strange. If this is really true, shared disk failover solution is
fundamentally broken because the standby needs to start up with the
shared corrupted database at the
Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at writes:
We already rely on WAL-before-data to ensure correct recovery. What is
proposed here is to slightly redefine it to require WAL to be
replicated before it is considered to be flushed. This ensures that no
data page on disk differs from the WAL that the slave
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 11:01 +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
I think we should first deal with using it for page checksums and if
future versions want to reuse some of the code for WAL checksums then
we can rearrange the code.
Sounds good to me, although I expect we at least want any assembly to be
in
2013-04-10 18:46 keltezéssel, Fujii Masao írta:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-04-10 10:10:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com writes:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:42 PM Samrat Revagade wrote:
Sorry, this is
On 2013-04-10 20:39:25 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
2013-04-10 18:46 keltezéssel, Fujii Masao írta:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2013-04-10 10:10:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com writes:
On Wednesday, April
On 04/08/2013 10:11 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
If there is anybody still using Postgres on machines without wcstombs() or
towlower(), and they have non-ASCII data indexed by pg_trgm, they'll need
to REINDEX those indexes after pg_upgrade to 9.3, else
Robert Haas escribió:
Just for fun, I implemented a toy background worker tonight using the
new bgworker framework. Generally, it went well, and I'm pleased with
the design of the new facility.
Thanks.
However, I did notice one oddity. I initialized the worker flags like
this:
Michael Paquier escribió:
Hi all,
While playing with custom background workers, I noticed that postmaster
does not notify its registered bgworkers if it receives SIGHUP,
so you have to send a SIGHUP directly to the bgworker process to notify it.
Signal handling is correctly done for SIGQUIT
Michael Paquier escribió:
Hi all,
Please find attached a simple example of bgworker that logs a message each
time a SIGTERM or SIGHUP signal is received by it:
- hello signal: processed SIGHUP when SIGHUP is handled by my example
- hello signal: processed SIGTERM when SIGTERM is handled by
On 10 April 2013 11:15, Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at wrote:
* We might even be able to calculate CRC32 checksum for normal WAL
records,
and use Ants' checksum for full page writes (only). So checking WAL
checksum
would then be to confirm header passes CRC32 and then re-check the Ants
On 4/10/13 10:54 AM, ˧ wrote:
I'm interested in the idea Rewrite (add) pg_dump and pg_restore
utilities as libraries (.so, .dll .dylib).
The pg_dump code is a giant mess, and refactoring it as a library is
perhaps not a project for a new hacker.
Independent of that, I think the first
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I think the main uses cases mentioned in connection with this idea are
usually in the direction of finer-grained control over what gets dumped
and how. But making pg_dump into a library would not necessarily
address that.
There's also the matter of embedding pg_dump
On 04/10/2013 11:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I think the main uses cases mentioned in connection with this idea are
usually in the direction of finer-grained control over what gets dumped
and how. But making pg_dump into a library would not necessarily
address that.
Hannu Krosing wrote:
On 04/10/2013 11:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I think the main uses cases mentioned in connection with this idea are
usually in the direction of finer-grained control over what gets dumped
and how. But making pg_dump into a library would not
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Natural solution to this seems to move most of pg_dump functionality
into backend as functions, so we have pg_dump_xxx() for everything
we want to dump plus a topological sort function for getting the
objects in right order.
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I feel pretty strongly that we shouldn't add any such complications to
XLogInsert() itself, its complicated enough already and it should be
made simpler, not more complicated.
+1, emphatically. XLogInsert is a really
Kohei KaiGai wrote:
This patch adds sepgsql support for permission checks almost
equivalent to the existing FUNCTION EXECUTE privilege.
While skimming this patch I noticed that you're using
getObjectDescription() as the audit_name of objects. This may be a
bit unstable, for example consider
Thanks for committing the fix!
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
Michael Paquier escribió:
Hi all,
Please find attached a simple example of bgworker that logs a message
each
time a SIGTERM or SIGHUP signal is received by it:
- hello
If I'm reading the code right [1], this GUC does not actually *synchronize*
the scans, but instead just makes sure that a new scan starts from a block
that was reported by some other backend performing a scan on the same
relation.
Since the backends scanning the relation may be processing the
Gurjeet Singh gurj...@singh.im writes:
If I'm reading the code right [1], this GUC does not actually *synchronize*
the scans, but instead just makes sure that a new scan starts from a block
that was reported by some other backend performing a scan on the same
relation.
Well, that's the only
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 20:17 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
OK, so we have a single combined calculate a checksum for a block
function. That uses Jeff's zeroing trick and Ants' bulk-oriented
performance optimization.
For buffer checksums we simply calculate for the block.
Sounds good.
For
src/backend/catalog/dependency.c:213:
EventTriggerSupportsObjectType(getObjectClass(thisobj)))
src/backend/commands/event_trigger.c:1014:
Assert(EventTriggerSupportsObjectType(getObjectClass(object)));
getObjectClass() returns type ObjectClass, but
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singh gurj...@singh.im writes:
If I'm reading the code right [1], this GUC does not actually
*synchronize*
the scans, but instead just makes sure that a new scan starts from a
block
that was reported by some
Gurjeet Singh gurj...@singh.im writes:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The point you're missing is that the synchronization is self-enforcing:
Let's consider a pathological case where a scan is performed by a user
controlled cursor, whose scan speed
Hello, 帅.
You wrote:
帅 Hi all,
帅 I'd like to introduce myself to the dev community. I am Shuai
帅 Fan, a student from Dalian University of Technology, DLUT , for
帅 short, China. And I am interested in working with PostgreSQL project in
GSOC2013.
帅 I'm interested in the idea Rewrite
52 matches
Mail list logo
