I sent this email one month ago but forgot to cc pgsql-hackers ;)
For the record, it is the set of patches attached that have been
pushed as 974ece5, and only Fujii-san has received them... Thanks for
committing the fix by the way!
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Fujii Masao
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>
> Thanks for the
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review.
Thanks for the updated version of the patch!
>> +
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Ah, sorry for the confusion.
>
> At Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:43:22 +0900, Michael Paquier
> wrote in
>
Ah, sorry for the confusion.
At Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:43:22 +0900, Michael Paquier
wrote in
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Thank you for the comment.
Er, it is good to see more people interested in this problem... As the
former author, still working actively on this patch, perhaps it would
be better if I continue to code
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Thanks for the review.
> Isn't it better to mention "an exclusive backup" here? What about
>
> EXCLUSIVE_BACKUP_STARTING means that pg_start_backup() is starting an
> exclusive
> backup.
> EXCLUSIVE_BACKUP_STOPPING
Thank you for the comment.
At Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:49:12 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
in
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Sat, 5 Nov 2016 21:18:42 +0900, Michael Paquier
> wrote in
>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> I will mark this as "Ready for Committer".
>
> I have just noticed that Robert has switched this patch to "needs
>
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> I will mark this as "Ready for Committer".
I have just noticed that Robert has switched this patch to "needs
review" by mistake (I think that there was a mistake with another
patch), so I have switched it
Hello,
At Sat, 5 Nov 2016 21:18:42 +0900, Michael Paquier
wrote in
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Michael Paquier
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at
Hello,
(the header of this message is crafted so it might be isolate
this message from the thread)
The patch still applies on the current master with disaplacements.
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Michael
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> You seem to add another entry for this patch into
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> You seem to add another entry for this patch into CommitFest.
>> Either of them needs to be removed.
>>
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> You seem to add another entry for this patch into CommitFest.
> Either of them needs to be removed.
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/698/
Indeed. I just removed this one.
> This patch prevents pg_stop_backup
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Andreas Seltenreich
> wrote:
>> Michael Paquier writes:
>>
>>> Andreas, with the patch attached is the assertion still triggered?
>>> [2. text/x-diff;
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Won't the similar problem exists for nonExclusiveBackups? Basically
> in similar situation, the count for nonExclusiveBackups will be
> decremented and if it hits pg_start_backup_callback(), the following
> Assertion
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Andreas Seltenreich
> wrote:
>> Michael Paquier writes:
>>
>>> Andreas, with the patch attached is the assertion still triggered?
>>> [2. text/x-diff;
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Andreas Seltenreich wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>
>> Andreas, with the patch attached is the assertion still triggered?
>> [2. text/x-diff; base-backup-crash-v2.patch]
>
> I didn't observe the crashes since applying this patch. There
21 matches
Mail list logo