Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, thank you for testing. > > At Sat, 2 Apr 2016 14:20:55 +1300, Thomas Munro > wrote in >

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On 2016-04-04 10:35:34 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 4 April 2016 at 09:28, Fujii Masao wrote: > > Barring any objections, I'll commit this patch. No objection here either, just one question: Has anybody thought about the ability to extend this to do per-database syncrep?

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On 4 April 2016 at 09:28, Fujii Masao wrote: > Barring any objections, I'll commit this patch. > That sounds good. May I have one more day to review this? Actually more like 3-4 hours. I have no comments on an initial read, so I'm hopeful of having nothing at all to

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, thank you for testing. At Sat, 2 Apr 2016 14:20:55 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

At 2016-04-04 17:28:07 +0900, masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: > > Barring any objections, I'll commit this patch. No objections, just a minor wording tweak: doc/src/sgml/config.sgml: "The synchronous standbys will be the standbys that their names appear early in this list" should be "The

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:43 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:36 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI >> wrote: >>> I personally don't think it

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> I personally don't think it needs such a survive measure. It is >> very small syntax and the parser reads very short

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > I personally don't think it needs such a survive measure. It is > very small syntax and the parser reads very short text. If the > parser failes in such mode, something more serious should have >

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

I personally don't think it needs such a survive measure. It is very small syntax and the parser reads very short text. If the parser failes in such mode, something more serious should have occurred. At Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:51:02 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, > > At Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:38:22 +0900, Masahiko Sawada > wrote in > sawada.mshk> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, At Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:38:22 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in sawada.mshk> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > Thank you for the new

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Thank you for the new patch. Sorry to have overlooked some > versions. I'm looking the v19 patch now. > > make complains for an unused variable. > > | syncrep.c: In function ‘SyncRepGetSyncStandbys’: > |

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On 2016/03/28 17:50, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > # LISPers don't hesitate to dive into Sea of Parens. Sorry in advance to be off-topic: https://xkcd.com/297 :) Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Thank you for the new patch. Sorry to have overlooked some versions. I'm looking the v19 patch now. make complains for an unused variable. | syncrep.c: In function ‘SyncRepGetSyncStandbys’: | syncrep.c:601:13: warning: variable ‘next’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] |ListCell

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> Also I felt a sense of discomfort regarding using [ and ] as a special >> character for priority method. >> Because (, ) and [, ] are

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Also I felt a sense of discomfort regarding using [ and ] as a special > character for priority method. > Because (, ) and [, ] are a little similar each other, so it would > easily make many syntax errors when

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, > > At Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:04:49 +0900, Masahiko Sawada > wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, > > At Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:04:49 +0900, Masahiko Sawada > wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, At Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:04:49 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> At Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:08:36 +0900, Fujii Masao >> wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, > > At Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:08:36 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote > in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, At Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:08:36 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> Attached patch incorporates above comments. >> Please find it. > > Attached is the latest version of the patch based on your patch.

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI >> wrote: >>> Thank you for the revised patch. >>

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> Thank you for the revised patch. > > Thanks for reviewing the patch! > >> This version looks to focus on n-priority

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Thank you for the revised patch. Thanks for reviewing the patch! > This version looks to focus on n-priority method. Stuffs for the > other methods like n-quorum has been removed. It is okay for me. I

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Thank you for the revised patch. At Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:02:39 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > Sorry for the delay... Here is

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thank you so much for reviewing this

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

It seems to me a matter of definition of "available replicas". At Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:13:48 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Synchronous replication offers the ability to confirm that all changes -made by a transaction have been transferred to one synchronous standby -server. This extends the standard level of durability +made by a transaction have been transferred to one or more synchronous

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thank you so much for reviewing this patch! >> >> All review comments regarding document and comment are fixed. >>

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Reply to multiple hackers. Thank you for reviewing this patch. > +used. Priority is given to servers in the order that the appear > in the list. > > s/the appear/they appear/ > > -The minimum wait time is the roundtrip time between primary to standby. > +The minimum wait time is the

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, Sorry for long, hard-to-read writings in advance.. At Thu, 3 Mar 2016 23:30:49 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in > Hi, > > Thank you so much for reviewing this patch! > > All review comments

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Previous patch has bug around GUC parameter handling. > Attached updated version. I spotted a couple of typos: +used. Priority is given to servers in the order that the appear in the list. s/the appear/they

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you so much for reviewing this patch! > > All review comments regarding document and comment are fixed. > Attached latest v14 patch. > >> This accepts 'abc^Id' as a name, which is wrong behavior (but >>

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hi, Thank you so much for reviewing this patch! All review comments regarding document and comment are fixed. Attached latest v14 patch. > This accepts 'abc^Id' as a name, which is wrong behavior (but > such appliction names are not allowed anyway. If you assume so, > I'd like to see a comment

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Attached latest version patch. > > The changes from previous version are, > - Fix parser, lexer bugs. > - Add regression test patch based on patch Suraji submitted. > > Please review it. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Sorry, I misread the previous patch. It actually worked. At Sun, 28 Feb 2016 04:04:37 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in > The changes from previous version are, > - Fix parser, lexer bugs. > - Add

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:38:22 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote in > <20160226.103822.12680005.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> >> Hello, Thanks

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

At Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:38:22 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20160226.103822.12680005.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > Hello, Thanks for the new patch. > > > At Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:52:54 +0900, Masahiko Sawada

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, Thanks for the new patch. At Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:52:54 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Attached latest patch includes document patch. > >> When I changed s_s_names to 'hoge*' and reloaded the configuration file, >> the server crashed unexpectedly with the following error message. >> This is obviously a

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Attached latest patch includes document patch. > When I changed s_s_names to 'hoge*' and reloaded the configuration file, > the server crashed unexpectedly with the following error message. > This is obviously a bug. Fixed. > - allows any byte except a double quote in double-quoted >

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, At Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:01:59 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, > > Ok, I think we should concentrate the parser part for now. > > At Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:44:44 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote in >

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, Ok, I think we should concentrate the parser part for now. At Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:44:44 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20160223.17.178687579.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > Hello, > > At Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:52:29 +0900,

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, At Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:52:29 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: >>> Surprizingly yes. The list is handled as an identifier list and

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, >Remaining tasks are; >- Document patch. >- Regression test patch. >- Syntax error message for s_s_names improvement. Please find patch attached for regression test for multisync replication. I have created this patch over Michael's recovery-test-suite patch. Please review it. Regards

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: >> Surprizingly yes. The list is handled as an identifier list and >> parsed by SplitIdentifierString thus it can accept double-quoted >> names. >

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Surprizingly yes. The list is handled as an identifier list and > parsed by SplitIdentifierString thus it can accept double-quoted > names. Good point. I was not aware of this trick. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, At Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:36:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > > > +sync_node_group: > > > > +

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:36 AM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> So, here are some thoughts to make that

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:36 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> So, here are some thoughts to make that more user-friendly. I think >> that the critical issue here is to properly flatten the meta

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:36 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > So, here are some thoughts to make that more user-friendly. I think > that the critical issue here is to properly flatten the meta data in > the custom language and represent it properly in a new catalog, >

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > Hello, > > At Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:22:44 +0900, Michael Paquier > wrote in >

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, At Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:22:44 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Also, to be frank, I think we ought to be putting more effort into > another patch in this same area, specifically Thomas Munro's causal > reads patch. I think a lot of people today are trying to use > synchronous replication to build

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Also, to be frank, I think we ought to be putting more effort into >> another patch in this same area, specifically Thomas Munro's causal >> reads patch. I

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> Attached first version dedicated language patch (document patch is not yet.) > > Thanks for the patch! Will review it. > > I think

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, At Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:31:46 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, At Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:25:49 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Fujii

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> Attached first version dedicated language

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, At Wed, 10 Feb 2016 02:57:54 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Michael Paquier

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: > I am personally fine with () and [] as you mention, we could even consider > {}, each one of them has a different meaning

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Yes, I will implement regression test patch and documentation patch as well. Cool, now that we have a clear picture of where we want to move, that would be an excellent thing to have. Having the docs in the place

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Also, to be frank, I think we ought to be putting more effort into >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:40 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, > > At Tue, 9 Feb 2016 00:48:57 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote > in >> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Michael

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, kharagesuraj wrote: > Hello, > > > > > > >> I agree with first version, and attached the updated *patch* which are > >> modified so that it supports simple multiple sync replication you > >>suggested. > >> (but test cases are not

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hi Suraj, On 2016/02/09 12:16, kharagesuraj wrote: > Hello, > > >>> I agree with first version, and attached the updated patch which are >>> modified so that it supports simple multiple sync replication you >>> suggested. >>> (but test cases are not included yet.) > > I have tried for some

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, At Tue, 9 Feb 2016 00:48:57 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Michael Paquier

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, >> I agree with first version, and attached the updated patch which are >> modified so that it supports simple multiple sync replication you >>suggested. >> (but test cases are not included yet.) I have tried for some basic in-built test cases for multisync rep. I have created one patch

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

hello, I have tested v7 patch. but i think you forgot to remove some debug points in patch from src/backend/replication/syncrep.c file. for (i = 0; i < num_sync; i++) + { + elog(WARNING, "sync_standbys[%d] = %d", i, sync_standbys[i]); + } + elog(WARNING, "num_sync

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Michael

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

> We may have a good idea of how to define a custom language, still we > are going to need to design a clean interface at catalog level more or > less close to what is written here. If we can get a clean interface, > the custom language implemented, and TAP tests that take advantage of > this

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > I agree with adding new system catalog to easily checking replication > status for user. And group name will needed for this. >

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:40 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, At Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:06:45 +0300, Michael Paquier wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On 4 February 2016 at 14:34, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> So you disagree with only third version that I proposed, i.e., >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> So you disagree with only third version that I proposed, i.e., >> adding some hooks for sync replication? If yes and you're OK >> with the

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > Now I'm thinking that mini-language is better choice. A json has some good > points, but its big problem is that the setting value is likely to be very > long. > For example, when the master needs to wait for one local

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't in the end care very much about how we solve this problem. > But I'm glad you agree that whatever we do to solve the simple problem > should be a logical subset of what the full solution will eventually > look

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Yes, please let's use the custom language, and let's not care of not > more than 1 level of nesting so as it is possible to represent > pg_stat_replication in a simple way for the user. "not" is used twice in

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> Yes, please let's use the custom language,

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> Yes, please let's use the custom language,

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Yes, please let's use the custom language, and let's not care of not >> more than 1 level of nesting so as it is possible to

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > So what about the following plan? > > [first version] > Add only synchronous_standby_num which specifies the number of standbys > that the master must wait for before marking sync replication as completed. > This version

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> So what about the following plan? >> >> [first version] >> Add only synchronous_standby_num which specifies the number of standbys >> that the

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Masahiko

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > So you disagree with only third version that I proposed, i.e., > adding some hooks for sync replication? If yes and you're OK > with the first and second versions, ISTM that we almost reached > consensus on the direction

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:08 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > [first version] > Add only synchronous_standby_num which specifies the number of standbys > that the master must wait for before marking sync replication as completed. > This version supports simple use cases like "I

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Michael

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> By the discussions so far, I'm planning to have several replication >> methods such as 'quorum', 'complex' in the feature, and the each >> replication

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> By the discussions so far, I'm planning to have several

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:10 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 1:17 PM,

<    1   2   3   4   >