Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> >> >> I’m not entirely sure why this was flagged as "Waiting for Author” by the >> automatic run, the patch applies

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

Hi, On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > I’m not entirely sure why this was flagged as "Waiting for Author” by the > automatic run, the patch applies for me and builds so resetting back to > “Needs > review”. > > This patch applies and build cleanly and

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

> On 30 May 2017, at 19:55, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 5/29/17 22:56, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:33:48AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: Looks like a

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

On 5/29/17 22:56, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:33:48AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Looks like a bug that we should fix in PG10, with backpatch to 9.4 (or >>> as far as it goes). >>> >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:33:48AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 22 March 2017 at 02:50, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > > >> When using logical replication, I ran into a situation where the >

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 22 March 2017 at 02:50, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >> When using logical replication, I ran into a situation where the >> pg_stat_replication.state is not updated until any wal record is sent >>

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

On 22 March 2017 at 02:50, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > When using logical replication, I ran into a situation where the > pg_stat_replication.state is not updated until any wal record is sent > after started up. For example, I set up logical replication with 2 > subscriber

[HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

Hi all, When using logical replication, I ran into a situation where the pg_stat_replication.state is not updated until any wal record is sent after started up. For example, I set up logical replication with 2 subscriber and restart the publisher server, but I see the following status for a while

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 06:08:21PM -0700, Thomas Lockhart wrote: clients. We have been very low-key (imho) in representing this solution to the developer community, but it should be considered for applications matching its capabilities. I should like to emphasise that I have no desire to

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status

On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 11:40:20AM -0400, Michael Meskes wrote: could anyone please enlighten me about the status of replication? I do expect lots of questions about this, and I'm not really sure if I can promise it for 7.3. :-) 8.0 ;-) (?) I add the other quesion: how is current status

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status

On Tue, 28 May 2002, Michael Meskes wrote: This is about pgreplication I think. Is the the replication project of choice for pgsql? IIRC there quite some projects for this topic: PostgreSQL replicator Rserver Usogres dbbalancer There's also DBMirror which I submitted to the contrib

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status

Karel Zak wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 11:40:20AM -0400, Michael Meskes wrote: could anyone please enlighten me about the status of replication? I do expect lots of questions about this, and I'm not really sure if I can promise it for 7.3. :-) 8.0 ;-) (?) I add the other

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status

Michael Meskes wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 05:12:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Last I talked to Darren, the replication code was modified to merge into our 7.2 tree. There are still pieces missing so it will not be functional when applied. It is remotely possible there could be

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status

... rserver only does single-master, while most people want multi-master. As you probably know, rserv is not limited to only a single instance of a single master. Many replication problems can be described as a single source problem (or should be described as such; moving to a fully distributed

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status

Agreed. It would be nice to see both a single-master and multi-master server included in our main tree and a clear description of when to use each. The confusion over the various replication solutions and their strengths/weaknesses is a major problem. I always felt a clearer README for rserv

[HACKERS] Replication status

Hi, could anyone please enlighten me about the status of replication? I do expect lots of questions about this, and I'm not really sure if I can promise it for 7.3. :-) Yes, I know it#s marked urgent in the TODO list, but no one seems to be listed as tackling this topic. Thanks a lot. Michael

[HACKERS] Replication status

Hi, could anyone please enlighten me about the status of replication? I do expect lots of questions about this, and I'm not really sure if I can promise it for 7.3. :-) Yes, I know it's marked urgent in the TODO list, but no one seems to be listed as tackling this topic. Thanks a lot. Michael

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status

Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: could anyone please enlighten me about the status of replication? I do expect lots of questions about this, and I'm not really sure if I can promise it for 7.3. :-) Unless 7.3 slips drastically from our current intended schedule (beta in late August),

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status

Unless 7.3 slips drastically from our current intended schedule (beta in late August), I think it's pretty safe to say there will be no replication in 7.3, beyond what's already available (rserv and so forth). I can't speak for any of the other replication projects, but pgreplication won't

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status

Tom Lane wrote: Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: could anyone please enlighten me about the status of replication? I do expect lots of questions about this, and I'm not really sure if I can promise it for 7.3. :-) Unless 7.3 slips drastically from our current intended schedule