Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

2013-04-21 15:10 keltezéssel, Bruce Momjian írta: On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 09:34:10AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: 2013-04-21 07:02 keltezéssel, Bruce Momjian írta: I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates mi

[HACKERS] minimizing the target list for foreign data wrappers

A few years ago I wrote a roll-your-own foreign-data-wrapper system for Postgres because Postgres didn't have one at the time (some details hereif anyone is interested). Now I'm being tasked to move it to Postgres 9.2.x a

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery target 'immediate'

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I just found out that if you use continuous archiving and online backups, > it's surprisingly difficult to restore a backup, without replaying any more > WAL than necessary. > > If you don't set a recovery target, PostgreSQL will recove

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery target 'immediate'

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas < hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > I just found out that if you use continuous archiving and online backups, > it's surprisingly difficult to restore a backup, without replaying any more > WAL than necessary. > You can find first WAL file name

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On 2013-04-21 14:50:07 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > I don't see parallel pg_dump in the release notes. I thought that got > committed? E.1.3.8.2. pg_dump: Add pg_dump --jobs to dump in parallel when using directory output format (Joachim Wieland) Greetings, Andres Freund --

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

Bruce, I don't see parallel pg_dump in the release notes. I thought that got committed? Anyway, see the pgsql-advocacy list for a longish discussion about what we should consider the "major" fetures for 9.3. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hack

Re: [HACKERS] Checksum failures generate warnings

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Do we really want to generate just a warning for a checksum failure, and > not an error; see PageIsVerified(). > Unless you turn on the parameter "ignore_checksum_failure", you will get an error. It will be generated by the caller, not b

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery target 'immediate'

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > wrote: >> >> It seems that we're missing a setting, something like recovery_target = >> 'immediate', which would mean "stop as soon as consistency is reached". Or >> am I missing some trick

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 08:28:22AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > 2013-03-29 02:46 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: > >Since there has been some, um, grumbling about the quality of the > >release notes of late, I've prepared draft notes for next week's > >releases, covering commits through today. T

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 09:25:39AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > doc/src/sgml/release.sgml suggest using the last one but when I looked at > release-9.3, I saw "(AlvaroAacute;lvaro Herrera)" in the webpage several times > where the sgml contains "(Álvaro Herrera)", so it's not bulletproof > e

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 02:45:42PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > but that is th

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 09:34:10AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > 2013-04-21 07:02 keltezéssel, Bruce Momjian írta: > >I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > >beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > >but that is the current plan.

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:36:32PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > * Improve grouping of sessions waiting for commit_delay (Peter Geoghegan) > > I think this should be under "General Performance". It's definitely a > performance feature. OK, moved. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery target 'immediate'

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > wrote: >> I just found out that if you use continuous archiving and online backups, >> it's surprisingly difficult to restore a backup, without replaying any more >> WAL than necessary. >>

Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent DB data in Streaming Replication

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Florian Pflug wrote: > On Apr17, 2013, at 12:22 , Amit Kapila wrote: >> Do you mean to say that as an error has occurred, so it would not be able to >> flush received WAL, which could result in loss of WAL? >> I think even if error occurs, it will call flush in Wa

Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent DB data in Streaming Replication

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:19 PM Florian Pflug wrote: >> On Apr17, 2013, at 12:22 , Amit Kapila wrote: >> > Do you mean to say that as an error has occurred, so it would not be >> able to >> > flush received WAL, which could result in los

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On 2013-04-20 22:36:32 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I will be working on polishing them for the next ten days, so any > > feedback, patches, or commits are welcome. I still need to add lots of > > SGML markup. > > I've noticed a few t

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > but that is the current plan. I have completed a draft 9.3 release > notes, which you can view he

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

2013-04-21 07:02 keltezéssel, Bruce Momjian írta: I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, but that is the current plan. I have completed a draft 9.3 release notes, which you can view here:

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

2013-04-21 08:28 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta: 2013-03-29 02:46 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: Since there has been some, um, grumbling about the quality of the release notes of late, I've prepared draft notes for next week's releases, covering commits through today. These are now committe