On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> Interesting. I got just today a bug
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Interesting. I got just today a bug report that is actually a symptom
>> that people should be careful about: it is possible that
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> >> I've applied these two patches now.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I've applied these two patches now.
>>
>> The one that fixes the initialization backpatched to 9.3 which is the oldest
>> one that
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Michael Paquier <
> michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I've applied these two patches now.
>
> The one that fixes the initialization backpatched to 9.3 which is the oldest
> one that has it, and the one that changes the actual 0-vs-NULL output to 9.5
> only as it's a
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> > I'm only talking about the actual value in pg_stat_replication
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Michael Paquier <
>> michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I'm only talking about the actual value in pg_stat_replication here, not
> what we are using internally. These are two different things of course -
> let's keep them separate for now. In pg_stat_replication, we explicitly
> check for
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I'm only talking about the actual value in pg_stat_replication here, not
> > what we are using internally. These are two different things of course -
>
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Magnus Hagander
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Michael Paquier <
> michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Magnus Hagander
>> wrote:
>>
> In particular, it seems that in
Are the values for the log locations really relevant for backup
connections? And if they are, we need to document it :) ISTM we are just
more or less leaking random data out there?
I'm talking about the actual state=backup connection - not the connection
if we're using -x with pg_basebackup.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Magnus Hagander
wrote:
> Are the values for the log locations really relevant for backup
> connections? And if they are, we need to document it :) ISTM we are just
> more or less leaking random data out there?
>
> I'm talking about the
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Magnus Hagander
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
>
>> Are the values for the log locations really relevant for backup
>> connections? And if they are, we need to document it :) ISTM
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Magnus Hagander
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Are the values for the log
15 matches
Mail list logo