Hi,
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> While Simon stated it a bit strongly, I think it's important that you alert
> people if you think you have to remove existing features in order to make
> easy standby possible.
Now, I think that any existing capabilities don't need to be r
Fujii,
Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing capabilities
Good
unless necessary.
That is not a caveat I will accept, a priori.
While Simon stated it a bit strongly, I think it's important that you
alert people if you think you have to remove existing features in order
to m
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 23:21 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Fujii,
>
> >> Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing capabilities
> >
> > Good
> >
> >> unless necessary.
> >
> > That is not a caveat I will accept, a priori.
>
> While Simon stated it a bit strongly
My intention was only
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Currently walmgr.py is doing everything from setting up replica to
getting up-to-last-second changes to slave's disk.
If walmgr.py and its cousins had good documentation there would possibly
be much greater acceptance of them.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hack
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 12:21 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 22:17 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> > > Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need. If the above will remove all the
> > > B.S. currently associated with actually doing PITR (rsync, scp, nfs,
> > > pg_standby pick your p
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 22:17 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need. If the above will remove all the
> > B.S. currently associated with actually doing PITR (rsync, scp, nfs,
> > pg_standby pick your poison) then I am all for it.
>
> If you use walmgr.py, then all you
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 17:36 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
> > > wrote:
> > > > Could you please let me know
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:02 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:50 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any exist
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:50 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing
>> > > > capabilities
>> > >
>> > >
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:50 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing capabilities
> > >
> > > Good
> > >
> > > > unless necessary.
>
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:50 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > >
> > > Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing capabilities
> >
> > Good
> >
> > > unless necessary.
> >
> > That is not a caveat I will acce
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > That is exactly what I am against. Note the words "get rid of".
> > >
> > > This prevents parallel data transfer, use of split mirrors and variou
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> I believe so, see second bullet point in:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/3f0b79eb0902240751t13231593g17fbef70664d4...@mail.gmail.com
Cool.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 16:11 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> OK, so let's assume that we'll provide an extra facility that doesn't
> take anything away but which provides for close to zero config setup for
> the simple case. Frankly, that's what the vast majority of people want,
> in my experien
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > That is exactly what I am against. Note the words "get rid of".
> >
> > This prevents parallel data transfer, use of split mirrors and various
> > other techniques. It sounds n
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> That is exactly what I am against. Note the words "get rid of".
>
> This prevents parallel data transfer, use of split mirrors and various
> other techniques. It sounds neater, but it implies removal of useful
> features.
OK, ISTM that my
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
I think the more relevant question right now is whether the work Fujii
Masao is planning to do for 8.5 is reponsive to the following comment
from Heikki:
# IMHO, the synchronous replica
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > I think the more relevant question right now is whether the work Fujii
> > Masao is planning to do for 8.5 is reponsive to the following comment
> > from Heikki:
> >
> > # IMHO, the synchronous replication isn't
Robert Haas wrote:
I think the more relevant question right now is whether the work Fujii
Masao is planning to do for 8.5 is reponsive to the following comment
from Heikki:
# IMHO, the synchronous replication isn't in such good shape, I'm
afraid. I've said
# this before, but I'm not happy with t
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> I didn't think I had proposed any such thing, although maybe I'm just
>> not remembering. I'm pretty confused as to what the current thread is
>> all about.
>
> http://archives.postgre
Bruce Momjian wrote:
K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) wrote:
Hi,
Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features
that are still to be developed in the respective patches?
I'am currently referring the wiki: "Todo and Claim" for NTT and
for HotStandby, i see that almost all issues
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I didn't think I had proposed any such thing, although maybe I'm just
> not remembering. I'm pretty confused as to what the current thread is
> all about.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg00978.php
I don't think any
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> It seems to me that in previous discussions of Streaming Replication,
> Heikki put forward the proposition that the standby server should be
> able to connect to the primary and stream not only newly-generated WAL
> but also, if necessary,
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 18:48 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
>
> I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
> users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of us
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:53 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> >> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
>> > I am against removing an existing capability that is
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> So far, everything has been couched in terms of remove the way it is now
> and put in its place something "better". Heikki and Josh have said that
> or similar, as has Robert Haas on another thread, and Fujii-san
> specifically said "get r
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:53 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
> >>
> >
> > I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
> > users.
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:25 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Right. I was made a bit nervous by Joshua's comments, but somewhat
> reassured by his reference back to Heikki's comments. If we can make
> common cases simple to implement, that's great, as long as we don't
> lose functionality needed t
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Presumably we'll keep the capability to restore from a backup and restore
> from WAL archive as well, when those are available. Keeping that capability
> shouldn't add many lines of code.
Yes, I assume that only missing WAL files (
>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>>> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
>>
>> I am against removing an existing capability that is important to
>> some users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of
>
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of users that
would be affected, or how t
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of users that
would be affected, or how to count them.
--
Simon Rig
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 17:36 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
> > wrote:
> > > Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are
> > > still to be develop
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
wrote:
Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are still
to be developed in the respective patches?
I'am currently referring
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
> wrote:
> > Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are
> > still to be developed in the respective patches?
> >
> > I'am currently referring th
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
wrote:
> Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are still
> to be developed in the respective patches?
>
> I'am currently referring the wiki: "Todo and Claim" for NTT and for
> HotStandby, i see t
K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features
> that are still to be developed in the respective patches?
>
> I'am currently referring the wiki: "Todo and Claim" for NTT and
> for HotStandby, i see that almost all issues are close
37 matches
Mail list logo
