On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 11:19 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I think there's a race condition in the way LogCurrentRunningXacts() is
called at the end of checkpoint. This can happen in the master:
1. Checkpoint starts
2. Transaction 123 begins, and does some updates
3. Checkpoint ends.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 07:08:28PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 11:19 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I think there's a race condition in the way LogCurrentRunningXacts() is
called at the end of checkpoint. This can happen in the master:
1. Checkpoint starts
2.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Heikki
Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
When that is replayed, ProcArrayUpdateTransactions() will zap the
unobserved xids array with the list that includes XID 123, even though
we already saw a commit record for it.
I looked at this a
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's a race condition in the way LogCurrentRunningXacts() is
called at the end of checkpoint. This can happen in the master:
1. Checkpoint starts
2. Transaction 123 begins, and does some
Robert Haas wrote:
I had some review comments
I was hoping to get responses to, in the section beginning with A few
other comments based on a preliminary reading of this patch:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg00854.php
Having read the patch now, here's a one issue in
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Heikki
Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
I had some review comments
I was hoping to get responses to, in the section beginning with A few
other comments based on a preliminary reading of this patch:
On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 22:15 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I've said very clearly that I am working on this and it's fairly
laughable to suggest that anybody thought I wasn't. What more should I
do to prove something is
All,
Can we stop arguing about a patch everyone wants?
Simon: you have people offering to help with the patch. Offering to
help *right now*. Might I suggest that you establish a GIT branch for
Hot Standby so that more people can collaborate? Working on it until
you get it perfect offsite
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 10:20 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
All,
Can we stop arguing about a patch everyone wants?
Simon: you have people offering to help with the patch. Offering to
help *right now*. Might I suggest that you establish a GIT branch for
Hot Standby so that more people can
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 10:20 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Simon: you have people offering to help with the patch. Offering to
help *right now*. Might I suggest that you establish a GIT branch for
Hot Standby so that more people can collaborate? Working on it until
you get it perfect offsite
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:15:51PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 10:20 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Simon: you have people offering to help with the patch. Offering
to help *right now*. Might I suggest that you establish a GIT
branch for Hot Standby so that more people
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 10:20 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Simon: you have people offering to help with the patch. Offering to
help *right now*. Might I suggest that you establish a GIT branch for
Hot Standby so that more people can collaborate? Working on it until
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 22:02 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I think it would also be fair to point out that you keep saying that
you're going to deliver this patch for 8.5, but you haven't provided
any real timetable as to when you're going to start working on it or
when it'll be completed.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I'm working on HS; I've said so clearly and say it again now. To my
knowledge, no other Postgres project has committed to a timetable for
delivery, so I'm not clear why you think one should have been given
here, or why the
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 13:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I'm not sure why you're stirring this up again.
You stated:
- It's going to be very confusing if people submit their own versions of
- it. So now we have mine, Heikki's and Robert's. I'd like this to stop
-
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 13:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I'm not sure why you're stirring this up again.
You stated:
- It's going to be very confusing if people submit their own versions of
- it. So now we have mine, Heikki's and
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I've said very clearly that I am working on this and it's fairly
laughable to suggest that anybody thought I wasn't. What more should I
do to prove something is active if you won't accept my clearly spoken
word? How did
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us wrote:
Third, Robert, you should have communicated to the list that you were
going to work on the patch, so that there would not be duplicate effort
if someone else was also working on it. ?As I understood it,
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us wrote:
Third, Robert, you should have communicated to the list that you were
going to work on the patch, so that there would not be duplicate effort
if someone else was also working on it. As I understood it, Heikki was
in control
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us wrote:
Well, Simon stated that your version should now be used as the most
recent one, so I would call that a success.
Fair enough, but it still needs more work. I had some review comments
I was hoping to get responses to, in the
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 00:02 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Also, to my knowledge, nobody has really looked through the results to
see if they are any good, so the success of the endeavor remains in
doubt from my point of view. That's a bit of a shame because I am
interested in putting some
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 00:02 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Also, to my knowledge, nobody has really looked through the results to
see if they are any good, so the success of the endeavor remains in
doubt from my point of view. That's a bit of a shame because I am
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us wrote:
You are right you don't have to justify anything, but neither can you
claim ownership of the patch/feature and complain that others are
working on it too. This is a community project --- if you want your
patches to remain
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 17:27 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 21:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
It's going to be very confusing if people submit their own versions of
it. So now we have mine, Heikki's and Robert's. I'd like this to stop
please,
On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 17:27 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 21:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
It's going to be very confusing if people submit their own versions of
it. So now we have mine, Heikki's and Robert's. I'd like this to stop
please, have a little faith and a little
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 21:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
1. Downloaded norecoveryprocs-1.patch from
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49a64d73.6090...@enterprisedb.com
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4a4dbf8f.8040...@enterprisedb.com
I have to confess that I had no idea that
26 matches
Mail list logo
