Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >>> He meant logical replication, >> >> Oh I could not find he meant logical replication in the original >> report. > > The second message of the thread says so, but the first does not > mention logical replication at

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> He meant logical replication, > > Oh I could not find he meant logical replication in the original > report. The second message of the thread says so, but the first does not mention logical replication at all. >From here

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

> He meant logical replication, Oh I could not find he meant logical replication in the original report. > but the code in question here is the same > for streaming replication, or whatever it's called. Yes. Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English:

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

> In practice it's largely about architecture, I think. You definitely > need the same endianness and floating-point format, which are hardware, > and you need the same MAXALIGN, which is partly hardware but in principle > could be chosen differently in different ABI conventions for the same >

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On 8/16/17 19:41, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> Do we allow streaming replication among different OS? > > No. WAL is a binary format. > >> I thought it is >> required that primary and standbys are same platform (in my >>

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

Michael Paquier writes: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> Do we allow streaming replication among different OS? > No. WAL is a binary format. >> I thought it is >> required that primary and standbys are same platform (in my

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > Do we allow streaming replication among different OS? No. WAL is a binary format. > I thought it is > required that primary and standbys are same platform (in my > understanding this means the same hardware architecture

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

> Thank you Tom Lane, > This patch fixes the problem. > > With this patch, streaming replication started working (replication to > Windows) > > (Tested for Linux to Windows replication) Do we allow streaming replication among different OS? I thought it is required that primary and standbys are

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

This patch is fixing similar problem reported in Logical replication also by another user. Message: 20170524173644.1440.53...@wrigleys.postgresql.org Bug reference: 14669 Logged by: Igor

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

Andres Freund writes: > I don't see any relevant uses of sockets in older branches, did I miss > something? No, I think we don't need to go back further than v10. Even if it turns out we do, I'd just as soon let this get a bit of field testing first.

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On August 15, 2017 8:07:43 AM PDT, Andres Freund wrote: > > >On August 15, 2017 7:04:59 AM PDT, Tom Lane wrote: >>Peter Eisentraut writes: >>> On 8/14/17 10:57, Tom Lane wrote: I think we could commit

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On August 15, 2017 7:04:59 AM PDT, Tom Lane wrote: >Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 8/14/17 10:57, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I think we could commit add-connected-event-2.patch and call this >>> issue resolved. > >> Would you like to commit your

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 8/14/17 10:57, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think we could commit add-connected-event-2.patch and call this >> issue resolved. > Would you like to commit your patch then? It's really Andres' patch, but I can push it.

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On 8/14/17 10:57, Tom Lane wrote: > I think we could commit add-connected-event-2.patch and call this > issue resolved. Would you like to commit your patch then? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

Peter Eisentraut writes: > It appears there is a patch that fixes the issue now. Let's wait until > Wednesday to see if that ends up being successful. Jobim reported success with add-connected-event-2.patch --- are you expecting more testing to happen? I did

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On 8/13/17 15:46, Noah Misch wrote: > IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 10 open item is long past due > for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open > item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by > 2017-08-14 20:00 UTC, I

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

Thank you Tom Lane, This patch fixes the problem. With this patch, streaming replication started working (replication to Windows) (Tested for Linux to Windows replication) -Jobin. On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-08-13 16:55:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Geoghegan writes: >> > I think that it's useful for these things to be handled in an >> > adversarial manner, in the same way that litigation is

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

Andres Freund writes: > As a measure of last restart we could add a libpq workaround that forces > a pqSocketCheck() at the right moment, while still establishing a > connection. That's not good from an interruptability perspective, but > better than blocking for the entire

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On 2017-08-13 16:55:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Geoghegan writes: > > I think that it's useful for these things to be handled in an > > adversarial manner, in the same way that litigation is adversarial in > > a common law court. I doubt that Noah actually set out to

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

"Augustine, Jobin" writes: > Appears that patch is not helping. > Errors like below are still appearing in the log > === > 2017-08-11 12:22:35 UTC [2840]: [1-1] user=,db=,app=,client= FATAL: could > not connect to the primary server: could

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

Peter Geoghegan writes: > I think that it's useful for these things to be handled in an > adversarial manner, in the same way that litigation is adversarial in > a common law court. I doubt that Noah actually set out to demoralize > anyone. He is just doing the job he was assigned.

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-08-11 18:11:03 +0530, Augustine, Jobin wrote: >> Appears that patch is not helping. > That's too bad. Any chance you could install > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/procmon and > activate monitoring just for that phase?

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > FWIW, I'm personally quite demotivated by this style of handling > issues. You're essentially saying that any code change, even if it just > increases exposure of a preexisting bug, needs to be handled by the > committer

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

Hi, On 2017-08-11 18:11:03 +0530, Augustine, Jobin wrote: > Appears that patch is not helping. > Errors like below are still appearing in the log > === > 2017-08-11 12:22:35 UTC [2840]: [1-1] user=,db=,app=,client= FATAL: could > not connect to the primary server:

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On 2017-08-11 20:56:22 -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > > > If nobody volunteers, you could always resolve this by reverting 1e8a850 > > > and > > > successors. > > > > I think you're blaming the victim. Our current theory about the cause > > of this is that on Windows, WaitLatchOrSocket cannot be

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:56:22PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:59:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Noah Misch writes: > > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:25:37PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > >> I don't think I can usefully contribute to this. Could

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:59:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:25:37PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> I don't think I can usefully contribute to this. Could someone else > >> take it? This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

Appears that patch is not helping. Errors like below are still appearing in the log === 2017-08-11 12:22:35 UTC [2840]: [1-1] user=,db=,app=,client= FATAL: could not connect to the primary server: could not send data to server: Socket is not connected

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

Noah Misch writes: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:25:37PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I don't think I can usefully contribute to this. Could someone else >> take it? > If nobody volunteers, you could always resolve this by reverting 1e8a850 and > successors. I think

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

I am in an effort to create independent build environment on Windows to test the patch from Andres. I shall come back with result possibly in another 24 hours. -Jobin On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-08-10 18:51:07 -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > >

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On 2017-08-10 18:51:07 -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:25:37PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 8/7/17 21:06, Noah Misch wrote: > > >> That would fit. Until v10 (commit 1e8a850), PQconnectStart() had no > > >> in-tree > > >> callers outside of libpq itself. > > >

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:25:37PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/7/17 21:06, Noah Misch wrote: > >> That would fit. Until v10 (commit 1e8a850), PQconnectStart() had no > >> in-tree > >> callers outside of libpq itself. > > [Action required within three days. This is a generic

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On 2017-08-08 19:25:37 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/7/17 21:06, Noah Misch wrote: > >> That would fit. Until v10 (commit 1e8a850), PQconnectStart() had no > >> in-tree > >> callers outside of libpq itself. > > [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] > > >

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On 8/7/17 21:06, Noah Misch wrote: >> That would fit. Until v10 (commit 1e8a850), PQconnectStart() had no in-tree >> callers outside of libpq itself. > [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 08:50:37AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 11:17:57AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Noah Misch writes: > > > I've added this as an open item. Confirmed in this setup: > > > > > -- Client > > > Windows Server 2016 > > >