Am 31.12.2014 um 11:40 schrieb Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com:
As long as master is fixed, I don't actually care. But I agree with Dennis
that it's hard to see what's been commited with all the different issues
found, and if any commits were done, in which branch. I'd like to be able
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
guilla...@lelarge.info wrote:
2014-12-12 14:58 GMT+01:00 Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com:
Now, what do we do with the back-branches? I'm not sure. Changing the
behaviour in back-branches could cause nasty surprises. Perhaps it's best
2014-12-12 14:58 GMT+01:00 Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com:
On 12/10/2014 04:32 PM, Dennis Kögel wrote:
Hi,
Am 04.09.2014 um 17:50 schrieb Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
j...@dalibo.com:
Since few months, we occasionally see .ready files appearing on some
slave
instances from
On 12/10/2014 04:32 PM, Dennis Kögel wrote:
Hi,
Am 04.09.2014 um 17:50 schrieb Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais j...@dalibo.com:
Since few months, we occasionally see .ready files appearing on some slave
instances from various context. The two I have in mind are under 9.2.x. […]
So it seems for
Hi,
Am 04.09.2014 um 17:50 schrieb Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais j...@dalibo.com:
Since few months, we occasionally see .ready files appearing on some slave
instances from various context. The two I have in mind are under 9.2.x. […]
So it seems for some reasons, these old WALs were forgotten by
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:12 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/27/2014 02:12 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 11:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
At least for master, we
On 10/27/2014 06:12 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/27/2014 02:12 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 11:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
At least for master, we should consider changing the way the
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 11:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
At least for master, we should consider changing the way the archiving
works so that we only archive WAL that was generated in the same server.
I.e. we should
On 10/27/2014 02:12 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 11:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
At least for master, we should consider changing the way the archiving
works so that we only archive WAL that was
On 10/23/2014 11:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
At least for master, we should consider changing the way the archiving
works so that we only archive WAL that was generated in the same server.
I.e. we should never try to archive WAL files belonging to another timeline.
I just remembered that
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 11:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
At least for master, we should consider changing the way the archiving
works so that we only archive WAL that was generated in the same server.
I.e. we should
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
So, this is what I came up with for master. Does anyone see a problem with
it?
In the proposed commit message, you mis-spelled significant as signicant.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, the patch seems to make the
On 10/23/2014 08:59 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
In this
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 08:59 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Sounds reasonable, for back-branches. Although I'm still worried we might
miss some corner-case unless we go with a more wholesale solution.
Don't really want to be
On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 08:59 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Sounds reasonable, for back-branches. Although I'm still worried we might
miss some corner-case unless we go with a
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 08:59 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 08:59 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Sounds reasonable, for
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 08:59 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Sounds reasonable, for
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
That's not right. Should check *after* the write if the segment was
completed, and close it if so. Like the attached.
Just
On 10/20/2014 09:26 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, the patch seems to make the restartpoint recycle even WAL files
which have
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I found one problem in the 0002 patch. The patch changes the recovery so
that
it creates .done files for every WAL files which exist in pg_xlog
directory at
the end of recovery. But even WAL files which will have to be
On 10/22/2014 04:24 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
I think we should take a more wholesale approach to this. We should
enforce the rule that the server only ever archives WAL files belonging to
the same timeline
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, the patch seems to make the restartpoint recycle even WAL files
which have .ready files and will have to be archived
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Michael Paquier
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
The additional process at promotion sounds like a good idea, I'll try to
get a patch done tomorrow. This would result as well in
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
The additional process at promotion sounds like a
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, the patch seems to make the restartpoint recycle even WAL
files
which have .ready files and will have to be archived later. Thought?
The real problem currently is that it is possible to have a segment file
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
The additional process at promotion sounds like a good idea, I'll try to
get a patch done tomorrow. This would result as well in removing the
XLogArchiveForceDone stuff. Either way, not that I have been able to
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
1. Where do the FF files come from? In 9.2, FF-segments are not supposed to
created, ever.
I think we should add a check in walreceiver, to throw an error if the
master sends an invalid WAL pointer, pointing to
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
j...@dalibo.com wrote:
We kept the WAL files and log files for further analysis. How can we help
regarding this issue?
Commit c2f79ba has added as assumption that the WAL receiver should always
enforce the create of .done files
On 10/08/2014 10:44 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
j...@dalibo.com wrote:
We kept the WAL files and log files for further analysis. How can we help
regarding this issue?
Commit c2f79ba has added as assumption that the WAL receiver
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
1. Where do the FF files come from? In 9.2, FF-segments are not supposed
to created, ever.
Since this only happens with streaming replication, the FF segments are
probably being created by walreceiver.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/08/2014 10:44 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
j...@dalibo.com wrote:
We kept the WAL files and log files for further analysis. How can we help
On 10/08/2014 04:59 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Instead of creating any .done files during recovery, we could scan pg_xlog
at promotion, and create a .done file for every WAL segment that's present
at that point. That
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 10/08/2014 04:59 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Instead of creating any .done files during recovery, we could scan
pg_xlog
at
Hi hackers,
We spend some time with Guillaume Lelarge studying this issue.
CreateRestartPoint() calls RemoveOldXlogFiles() to drop/recycle old WALs. This
one is calling XLogArchiveCheckDone() to check if the given WAL can be dropped.
As our slave has archive_mode archive_command set,
39 matches
Mail list logo
