On 19 August 2013 09:20, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 08.08.2013 20:15, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>
>> Bruce, all:
>>
>>> We seem to be all over the map with the fast promotion code --- some
>>> people don't trust it, some people want an option to enable the old
>>> method, and some people want the ol
On 19.08.2013 20:27, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:20:42AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I think "promote" file should trigger the fast promotion, and the
filename to trigger the slow mode should be called
"fallback_promote" or "safe_promote" or something
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 01:27:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:20:42AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> I think "promote" file should trigger the fast promotion, and the
> >> filename to trigger the slow mode should be called
> >> "fallback_pr
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:20:42AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I think "promote" file should trigger the fast promotion, and the
>> filename to trigger the slow mode should be called
>> "fallback_promote" or "safe_promote" or something like that. There
>> wasn't any
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:20:42AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> And it's even worse if you use 9.3 pg_ctl against a 9.2 server: it
> will create a filed called "fast_promote" and return success, but it
> won't actually do anything.
>
> I think "promote" file should trigger the fast promotion
Robert Haas wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I think "promote" file should trigger the fast promotion, and
>> the filename to trigger the slow mode should be called
>> "fallback_promote" or "safe_promote" or something like that.
>> There wasn't any good reason to change the filename primari
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Well, I don't see much harm in keeping the old behavior as an undocumented
> escape hatch, as it is now. The way I'd phrase the current situation is
> this: 9.3 now always does "fast promotion". However, for debugging and
> testing purpo
On 08.08.2013 20:15, Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce, all:
We seem to be all over the map with the fast promotion code --- some
people don't trust it, some people want an option to enable the old
method, and some people want the old method removed.
Having read over this thread, the only reason given
Hi,
I understood it's too late to change the feature.
I hope it will be revised in 9.4!
(2013/08/09 4:13), Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 11:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> I don't think anybody working on related areas of the code thinks it's
>> rock solid.
>> But anyway, I just don't see
On 08/08/2013 11:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't think anybody working on related areas of the code thinks it's
> rock solid.
> But anyway, I just don't see the downside of allowing problem
> analysis. You're free to do more testing, review, whatever before the
> release.
I'm 100% with you
On 2013-08-08 10:51:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 10:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-08-08 10:15:14 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> Either we have confidence is fast promotion, or we don't. If we don't
> >> have confidence, then either (a) more testing is needed, or (b) it
>
On 08/08/2013 10:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-08-08 10:15:14 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Either we have confidence is fast promotion, or we don't. If we don't
>> have confidence, then either (a) more testing is needed, or (b) it
>> shouldn't be the default. Again, here, we are coming up
On 2013-08-08 10:15:14 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce, all:
>
> > We seem to be all over the map with the fast promotion code --- some
> > people don't trust it, some people want an option to enable the old
> > method, and some people want the old method removed.
>
> Having read over this thre
Bruce, all:
> We seem to be all over the map with the fast promotion code --- some
> people don't trust it, some people want an option to enable the old
> method, and some people want the old method removed.
Having read over this thread, the only reason given for retaining any
ability to use "old
On 2013-08-08 12:50:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 01:27:35PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > Why are we suddenly trying to make this even more complicated? It's too
> > > late to redesign stuff without very good evidence that it's
> > > needed. Renaming trigger files
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 01:27:35PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Why are we suddenly trying to make this even more complicated? It's too
> > late to redesign stuff without very good evidence that it's
> > needed. Renaming trigger files and changing their format certainly
> > doesn't seem approp
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-08-08 06:40:00 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Tomonari Katsumata
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > 2013/8/6 Tom Lane
>> >>
>> >> Fujii Masao writes:
>> >> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freun
On 2013-08-08 06:40:00 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Tomonari Katsumata
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2013/8/6 Tom Lane
> >>
> >> Fujii Masao writes:
> >> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> FWIW I'd rather keep plain promotion for
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Tomonari Katsumata
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2013/8/6 Tom Lane
>>
>> Fujii Masao writes:
>> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund
>> > wrote:
>> >> FWIW I'd rather keep plain promotion for a release or two. TBH, I have
>> >> a
>> >> bit of trust issues regardin
On 2013-08-07 22:26:53 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Fujii Masao writes:
> >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund
> >> wrote:
> >>> FWIW I'd rather keep plain promotion for a release or two. TBH, I have a
> >>> bit of trust issues reg
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao writes:
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>>> FWIW I'd rather keep plain promotion for a release or two. TBH, I have a
>>> bit of trust issues regarding the new method, and I'd like to be able to
>>> test po
Hi,
2013/8/6 Tom Lane
> Fujii Masao writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> >> FWIW I'd rather keep plain promotion for a release or two. TBH, I have a
> >> bit of trust issues regarding the new method, and I'd like to be able to
> >> test potential issues against
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>
> Fujii Masao schrieb:
>>On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund
>>wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2013-08-06 03:24:58 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Hi all,
We discussed the $SUBJECT in the following threads:
>>http://www
Fujii Masao writes:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> FWIW I'd rather keep plain promotion for a release or two. TBH, I have a
>> bit of trust issues regarding the new method, and I'd like to be able to
>> test potential issues against a stock postgres by doing a normal i
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> -
>> + unlink(PROMOTE_SIGNAL_FILE);
>> Wouldn't it make sense to keep the call to stat() to check the file
>> status before unlinking it?
>
> Why do we need to check the existence of the file before removing it
> here?
Forget wha
Fujii Masao schrieb:
>On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund
>wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2013-08-06 03:24:58 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We discussed the $SUBJECT in the following threads:
>>>
>http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmozbr+wl8e7mf_krp6fy4fd2pmr11tpiuyjmf
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2013-08-06 03:24:58 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We discussed the $SUBJECT in the following threads:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmozbr+wl8e7mf_krp6fy4fd2pmr11tpiuyjmfx_vtg1...@mail.gmail.com
>> http:/
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We discussed the $SUBJECT in the following threads:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmozbr+wl8e7mf_krp6fy4fd2pmr11tpiuyjmfx_vtg1...@mail.gmail.com
>> http://ww
Hi,
On 2013-08-06 03:24:58 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We discussed the $SUBJECT in the following threads:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmozbr+wl8e7mf_krp6fy4fd2pmr11tpiuyjmfx_vtg1...@mail.gmail.com
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwEBUvgcx8X+Z0Hh+VdwYcJ8KCuR
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We discussed the $SUBJECT in the following threads:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmozbr+wl8e7mf_krp6fy4fd2pmr11tpiuyjmfx_vtg1...@mail.gmail.com
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwEBUvgcx8X+Z0Hh+VdwYcJ8KCuRuLt
Hi all,
We discussed the $SUBJECT in the following threads:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmozbr+wl8e7mf_krp6fy4fd2pmr11tpiuyjmfx_vtg1...@mail.gmail.com
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwEBUvgcx8X+Z0Hh+VdwYcJ8KCuRuLt1jSsxeLxPcX=0...@mail.gmail.com
Our consensus seems to remov
31 matches
Mail list logo
