Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't see much problem with rejecting VAC FULL in a HS master,
>> whether or not it gets removed altogether. Why not just do that
>> rather than write a lot of kluges?
> Hmm. At the moment, no action is required in the master to allow hot
> stand
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
>> So I guess what I'm asking is: Does anyone see any show-stoppers in
>> removing VACUUM FULL, and does anyone want to step up to the plate and
>> promise to do it before release?
>
> I don't see much problem with rejecting VAC FULL in a HS master,
>
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> So I guess what I'm asking is: Does anyone see any show-stoppers in
> removing VACUUM FULL, and does anyone want to step up to the plate and
> promise to do it before release?
I don't see much problem with rejecting VAC FULL in a HS master,
whether or not it gets remo
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
So I guess what I'm asking is: Does anyone see any show-stoppers in
removing VACUUM FULL
Here's the disclaimers attached to the new VACUUM REPLACE implementation
from Itagaki:
"We still need traditional VACUUM FULL behavior for system catalog
because we cannot change
On 11/15/09 2:25 AM PST, "Simon Riggs" wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 08:43 -0800, Robert Hodges wrote:
>
>> I can help set up automated basic tests for hot standby using 1+1 setups on
>> Amazon. I¹m already working on tests for warm standby for our commercial
>> Tungsten implementation and ne
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 21:37 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> Am I missing anything?
>
> Will review.
Thanks! Please use the head of git branch, I already found one major
oversight in what I posted that's fixed there... I should go to bed already.
--
Heikki Linnakang
Oh, forgot to mention another thing that I've been pondering:
Currently, the running-xacts record is written to the WAL after the
checkpoint record. There's a small chance that you get an xlog switch in
between. If that happens, it might take a long time after the checkpoint
record until the stand
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 14:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I can't see any obvious way around that.
>
> Huh? We're only doing this strict locking approach because you insisted
> that the looser approach was not acceptable.
Take it easy, Simon. By obvious, I meant "trivi
On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 08:43 -0800, Robert Hodges wrote:
> I can help set up automated basic tests for hot standby using 1+1 setups on
> Amazon. I¹m already working on tests for warm standby for our commercial
> Tungsten implementation and need to solve the problem of creating tests that
> adapt
Hi Simon and Heikki,
I can help set up automated basic tests for hot standby using 1+1 setups on
Amazon. I¹m already working on tests for warm standby for our commercial
Tungsten implementation and need to solve the problem of creating tests that
adapt flexibly across different replication mecha
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 22:19 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I got the impression earlier that you had some test environment set up
> to test hot standby. Can you share any details of what test cases
> you've run?
Fair question. The Sep 15 submission happened too quickly for us to
mobilise test
On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 12:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> While reading through the patch for what must be the 100th time by now,
:-)
> it occurred to me that this comment in heap_xlog_freeze:
>
> + /*
> +* Freezing tuples does not require conflict processing
> +*/
>
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 15:11 -0500, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> I skimmed through the documentation to get a better handle on what
> this will mean.
Thanks for this and any further corrections/additions.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (p
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 22:00 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 20:36 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Attached is the latest and greatest patch against CVS head, taken from
> > the hs-riggs branch in my git repository.
>
> Is there a reason why recovery.conf.sample does not in
Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> Is there a reason why recovery.conf.sample does not include (sample)
> entries for recovery_connections and max_standby_delay?
No, they probably should be included. I'll add them, thanks.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pg
Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> Other commands are in all-caps. Any reason INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE,
> TRUNCATE, CREATE, DROP, ALTER, and COMMENT are not?
No. Thanks, I'll fix that.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hac
On Nov 10, 2009, at 13:36 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Attached is the latest and greatest patch against CVS head, taken from
the hs-riggs branch in my git repository.
Awesome. Thank you, Simon and Heikki!
I skimmed through the documentation to get a better handle on what
this will mean.
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 20:36 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Attached is the latest and greatest patch against CVS head, taken from
> the hs-riggs branch in my git repository.
Is there a reason why recovery.conf.sample does not include (sample)
entries for recovery_connections and max_standby_de
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> HS writes a WAL record for subtransactions at the point that the subxid
>> cache overflows for any single transaction. Current cache size = 64.
>> Top-level transaction then writes one additional WAL record every
>> additional 64 subxids after that. T
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 11:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
Subcommitting every single row is going to be really painful,
especially after Hot Standby goes in and we have to issue a WAL record
after every 64 subtransactions (AIUI).
Yikes ... I ha
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 09:41 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 07:55 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Making some effort to transfer locks instead of acquiring+releasing
> >> would eliminate the need for having extra lock space available when
> >> s
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 07:55 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Making some effort to transfer locks instead of acquiring+releasing
>> would eliminate the need for having extra lock space available when
>> switching from hot standby mode to normal operation.
>
> This isn't ver
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 07:55 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 23:02 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Hmm, dunno about that, but there is one problem with the "grant to dummy
> >> proc, then release in startup process" approach. What if there isn't
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 23:02 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Hmm, dunno about that, but there is one problem with the "grant to dummy
>> proc, then release in startup process" approach. What if there isn't
>> enough shared memory available to re-acquire the lock for the dumm
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 23:02 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:37 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> >> So, I'm quite eager to just revert all those lock_twophase_recover()
> >> changes, and always rely on the "grant lock to dummy proc, then
> >>
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:37 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> So, I'm quite eager to just revert all those lock_twophase_recover()
>> changes, and always rely on the "grant lock to dummy proc, then
>> release
>> it in startup process" method. If we don't want to rely on th
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:37 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> So, I'm quite eager to just revert all those lock_twophase_recover()
> changes, and always rely on the "grant lock to dummy proc, then
> release
> it in startup process" method. If we don't want to rely on that,
> PostPrepare_Locks is
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 09:43 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 10:33 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > At this point, I'd like to cut out all those control functions to
> > pause/stop at various points from the patch.
>
> OK
Maybe OK, I should say. Some parts are important for t
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 10:33 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> At this point, I'd like to cut out all those control functions to
> pause/stop at various points from the patch.
OK
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 09:33 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> If you pause recovery, and then continue, we reset to "target none"
>> mode, even if a stopping point was set previously.
>
> Yes, currently. Resetting the target mode will do what you want, rather
> than continu
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 09:33 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> In advance-mode, we will merrilly skip over a WAL record that's a
> recovery stop target. Is that a bug or a feature?
Merrily?!? I saw it more as a sombre stepping motion.
Advance currently means set target at next record and continu
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 01:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> recovery_starts_paused is useless as it is. It pauses the recovery right
> after the first WAL record, all right, but before we see a running-xacts
> record, we won't let any backends in. And if you can't connect, you
> can't unpause,
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:33 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Let me know if I'm missing something. And please feel free to help, by
>> testing, by reviewing and commenting on the patch, or by addressing any
>> of the above issues. I will continue working on this, but this is
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:33 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> There's been a lot of churn in hot standby since the beginning of the
> commitfest, so I thought it would be good to summarize where we are.
>
> Attached is the latest and greatest patch against CVS head, taken from
> the hs-riggs bra
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 14:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> In the hot standby patch, we have this comment in procarray.c:
>
> > It is
> > * important that the XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT record contain *all* subxids
> > * not just those so far unreported because the sole purpose is to ensure
> >
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > But at least for simple features I think that there would be a value
> > in separating the patch author's work from the committer's adjustments.
> >
> >
>
> That is just going to make life harder for committers.
>
> There are plenty of things
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 14:05 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > But at least for simple features I think that there would be a value
> > in separating the patch author's work from the committer's adjustments.
> >
> >
>
> That is just going to make life harder for committers.
Robert Haas wrote:
But at least for simple features I think that there would be a value
in separating the patch author's work from the committer's adjustments.
That is just going to make life harder for committers.
There are plenty of things with my name on them that are not exactly
what
On Oct 9, 2009, at 1:21 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
You have posted patches that I have said I don't agree with. My
name is
going to be on this when it goes in, so I don't think it makes any
sense
to force that commit to include changes I don't agree with. I cannot
prevent
Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> [ scratches head ... ] Why is hot standby messing with this sort of
>>> thing at all? It sounds like a performance optimization that should
>>> be considered separately, and *later*.
>> Yeah, I too considered just ripping it out. Simon is worried that
>>
While playing with conflict resolution, I bumped into this:
postgres=# begin ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
BEGIN
postgres=# SELECT * FROM foo;
id | data
+--
12 |
(1 row)
postgres=# SELECT * FROM foo;
id | data
+--
12 |
(1 row)
postgres=# SELECT * FROM foo;
id | data
+---
Simon Riggs wrote:
> You have posted patches that I have said I don't agree with. My name is
> going to be on this when it goes in, so I don't think it makes any sense
> to force that commit to include changes I don't agree with. I cannot
> prevent you making changes afterwards, nor would I wish to
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 12:49 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I'll get cracking on some changes.
This will probably be next week now, just in case you're wondering when
I'll start adding patches.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@po
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 07:33 -0400, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I would still like you to make a clear statement that the contents of
> > that repository are BSD licenced open source contributions.
>
> Ok. All the content in the repository at
> git://git.postgresql.org/git/u
Simon Riggs wrote:
> I would still like you to make a clear statement that the contents of
> that repository are BSD licenced open source contributions.
Ok. All the content in the repository at
git://git.postgresql.org/git/users/heikki/postgres.git is released under
the same BSD license as Postgre
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 23:19 -0400, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > I've made public the version I'm working on. That's the version I'm
> > ultimately going to commit. It would be a lot more helpful if you
> > provided these patches over that version. Otherwise I have to r
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I've made public the version I'm working on. That's the version I'm
> ultimately going to commit. It would be a lot more helpful if you
> provided these patches over that version. Otherwise I have to refactor
> them over that codebase, possibly introducing new bugs.
Act
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 12:53 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> It looks like the standby tries to remove XID 4323 from the
>> known-assigned hash table, but it's not there because it was removed
>> and set in pg_subtrans by an XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT record earlier. I
>> guess we
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 12:07 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> we need be careful to avoid putting any extra work into the normal
> recovery path. Otherwise bugs in hot standby related code can cause
> crash recovery to fail.
Re-checked code and found a couple of additional places that needed
tes
On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 12:53 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> It looks like the standby tries to remove XID 4323 from the
> known-assigned hash table, but it's not there because it was removed
> and set in pg_subtrans by an XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT record earlier. I
> guess we should just not throw a
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 10:32 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I will docuemnt the recommendation to set max_standby_delay = 0 if
> > performing an archive recovery (and explain why).
>
> Hmm, not sure if that's such a good piece of advice either. It will mean
> waiting for
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 18:47 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> And if you could please review the changes I've been doing, just to
> make sure I haven't inadvertently introduced new bugs. That has
> happened before, as you've rightfully reminded me :-).
You posted 17 patches here.
I've reviewed
On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 13:57 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Per Simon's request, for the benefit of the archive, here's all the
> changes I've done on the patch since he posted the initial version for
> review for this commitfest as incremental patches. This is extracted
> from my git reposito
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 01:10 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > We discussed briefly your change
> > 0011-Replace-per-proc-counters-of-loggable-locks-with-per.patch.
> >
> > I don't see how that helps at all. The objective of lock counters was to
> > know if we can skip acq
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 18:30 -0400, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 11:25 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>> Per Simon's request, for the benefit of the archive, here's all the
> >>> changes I've done on the patch since he
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 11:25 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> Per Simon's request, for the benefit of the archive, here's all the
>>> changes I've done on the patch since he posted the initial version for
>>> review for this commitfest as increme
Simon Riggs wrote:
> We discussed briefly your change
> 0011-Replace-per-proc-counters-of-loggable-locks-with-per.patch.
>
> I don't see how that helps at all. The objective of lock counters was to
> know if we can skip acquiring an LWlock on all lock partitions. This
> change keeps the lock coun
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 10:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > I don't see how that helps at all. The objective of lock counters was to
> > know if we can skip acquiring an LWlock on all lock partitions. This
> > change keeps the lock counters yet acquires the locks we were trying t
Simon Riggs writes:
> I don't see how that helps at all. The objective of lock counters was to
> know if we can skip acquiring an LWlock on all lock partitions. This
> change keeps the lock counters yet acquires the locks we were trying to
> avoid. This change needs some justification since it is
On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 13:57 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Per Simon's request, for the benefit of the archive, here's all the
> changes I've done on the patch since he posted the initial version for
> review for this commitfest as incremental patches. This is extracted
> from my git repositor
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 11:25 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Per Simon's request, for the benefit of the archive, here's all the
> > changes I've done on the patch since he posted the initial version for
> > review for this commitfest as incremental patches. This is
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 18:04 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I will add code to make a shutdown checkpoint be a valid starting place
> > for Hot Standby, as long as there are no in-doubt prepared transactions.
> > That way we know there are no xids still running and no loc
On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 14:59 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The locking in smgr_redo_commit and smgr_redo_abort doesn't look right.
> First of all, smgr_redo_abort is not holding XidGenLock and
> ProcArrayLock while modifying ShmemVariableCache->nextXid and
> ShmemVariableCache->latestCompleted
Simon Riggs wrote:
> I will add code to make a shutdown checkpoint be a valid starting place
> for Hot Standby, as long as there are no in-doubt prepared transactions.
> That way we know there are no xids still running and no locks, without
> needing to write a record to say so.
Ok, I can live wit
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 13:52 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I'd rather just skip this for now. It's a minor case anyway and there's
> > nothing stopping writing their own RunningXactData records with a
> > function, if it is needed. I can add a function for that.
>
> Tha
Simon Riggs wrote:
> I'd rather just skip this for now. It's a minor case anyway and there's
> nothing stopping writing their own RunningXactData records with a
> function, if it is needed. I can add a function for that.
That won't help. There's no way to have it in a right place wrt. the
shutdown
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 11:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 10:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> >> It seems dangerous to write a WAL record after the shutdown checkpoint.
> >> It will be overwritten by subsequent startup, which is a recipe
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 11:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 10:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> >> It seems dangerous to write a WAL record after the shutdown checkpoint.
> >> It will be overwritten by subsequent startup, which is a recipe
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 10:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> It seems dangerous to write a WAL record after the shutdown checkpoint.
>> It will be overwritten by subsequent startup, which is a recipe for trouble.
>
> I've said its a corner case and not worth spending tim
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 10:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> It seems dangerous to write a WAL record after the shutdown checkpoint.
> It will be overwritten by subsequent startup, which is a recipe for trouble.
I've said its a corner case and not worth spending time on. I'm putting
it in at y
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 10:32 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I will docuemnt the recommendation to set max_standby_delay = 0 if
> > performing an archive recovery (and explain why).
>
> Hmm, not sure if that's such a good piece of advice either. It will mean
> waiting for
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 10:04 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> @@ -7061,6 +7061,15 @@ ShutdownXLOG(int code, Datum arg)
>>> else
>>> {
>>> /*
>>> +* Take a snapshot of running transactions and write this to WAL.
>>> +* Thi
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 10:04 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > @@ -7061,6 +7061,15 @@ ShutdownXLOG(int code, Datum arg)
> > else
> > {
> > /*
> > +* Take a snapshot of running transactions and write this to WAL.
> > +* This allows us to recons
Simon Riggs wrote:
> I will docuemnt the recommendation to set max_standby_delay = 0 if
> performing an archive recovery (and explain why).
Hmm, not sure if that's such a good piece of advice either. It will mean
waiting for queries forever, which probably isn't what you want if
you're performing
Simon Riggs wrote:
> @@ -7061,6 +7061,15 @@ ShutdownXLOG(int code, Datum arg)
> else
> {
> /*
> +* Take a snapshot of running transactions and write this to WAL.
> +* This allows us to reconstruct the state of running transactions
> +* during archive recovery
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 18:48 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Hmm, yes. ISTM that I'm still calculating latestRunningXid the old way
> > while assuming it is calculated the new way. The new way is just to grab
> > nextXid since we have XidGenLock and do TransactionIdRetreat
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 18:47 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Could you look into these two TODO items you listed on the wiki page:
Unless we agree otherwise, if its listed on the Wiki page then I will
work on it.
Maybe not as when you might like it, but I am working through the list.
5 new ch
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Hmm, yes. ISTM that I'm still calculating latestRunningXid the old way
> while assuming it is calculated the new way. The new way is just to grab
> nextXid since we have XidGenLock and do TransactionIdRetreat() on it.
Ok, good, that's what I thought too. I'll fix that.
--
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 09:33 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> Looking at the changes to StartupMultiXact, you're changing the locking
>> so that both MultiXactOffsetControlLock and MultiXactMemberControlLock
>> are acquire first before changing anything. Why? Looking at th
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 09:33 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Looking at the changes to StartupMultiXact, you're changing the locking
> so that both MultiXactOffsetControlLock and MultiXactMemberControlLock
> are acquire first before changing anything. Why? Looking at the other
> functions in th
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 14:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> + /*
> +* If our initial RunningXactData had an overflowed snapshot then we
> +* knew we were missing some subxids from our snapshot. We can use
> +* this data as an initial snapshot, but we cannot yet mark it valid.
> +
On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 15:35 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> TransactionIdIsInProgress() doesn't consult the known-assigned-xids
> structure. That's a problem: in the standby, TransactionIdIsInProgress()
> can return false for a transaction that is still running in the master.
> HeapTupleSatisfi
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 18:45 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Regarding this in InitStandbyDelayTimers:
> + /*
> +* If replication delay is enormously huge, just treat that as
> +* zero and work up from there. This prevents us from acting
> +* foolishly when replaying old log files.
+ /*
+* If our initial RunningXactData had an overflowed snapshot then we
+* knew we were missing some subxids from our snapshot. We can use
+* this data as an initial snapshot, but we cannot yet mark it valid.
+* We know that the missing subxids are equal to or earlier than
+
Regarding this in InitStandbyDelayTimers:
+ /*
+* If replication delay is enormously huge, just treat that as
+* zero and work up from there. This prevents us from acting
+* foolishly when replaying old log files.
+*/
+ if (*currentDelay_ms < 0)
+ *currentDelay_ms = 0;
+
Looking at the changes to StartupMultiXact, you're changing the locking
so that both MultiXactOffsetControlLock and MultiXactMemberControlLock
are acquired first before changing anything. Why? Looking at the other
functions in that file, all others that access both files are happy to
acquire one lo
Looking at the changes to StartupMultiXact, you're changing the locking
so that both MultiXactOffsetControlLock and MultiXactMemberControlLock
are acquire first before changing anything. Why? Looking at the other
functions in that file, all others that access both files are happy to
acquire one loc
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Per Simon's request, for the benefit of the archive, here's all the
> changes I've done on the patch since he posted the initial version for
> review for this commitfest as incremental patches. This is extracted
> from my git repository at
> git://git.postgresql.org/git/
TransactionIdIsInProgress() doesn't consult the known-assigned-xids
structure. That's a problem: in the standby, TransactionIdIsInProgress()
can return false for a transaction that is still running in the master.
HeapTupleSatisfies* functions can incorrectly set HEAP_XMIN/XMAX_INVALID
hint bits for
The locking in smgr_redo_commit and smgr_redo_abort doesn't look right.
First of all, smgr_redo_abort is not holding XidGenLock and
ProcArrayLock while modifying ShmemVariableCache->nextXid and
ShmemVariableCache->latestCompletedXid, respectively, like
smgr_redo_commit is. Attached patch fixes that
Per Simon's request, for the benefit of the archive, here's all the
changes I've done on the patch since he posted the initial version for
review for this commitfest as incremental patches. This is extracted
from my git repository at
git://git.postgresql.org/git/users/heikki/postgres.git.
--
He
Mark Mielke escribió:
> Most real life code gets a little more complicated. For example,
> what if we want to simulate a network failure or "out of disk space"
> condition? What if we want to test out what happens when the Y2038
> date is reached? This requires either complex test case setup that
On Sep 26, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
There's always pgtap. Whenever we find a new corner case, we add it
to
the development test suite.
Also, for C TAP, there's [libtap](http://jc.ngo.org.uk/trac-bin/trac.cgi/wiki/LibTap
). You can then use `prove` which you likely already have
On 09/26/2009 02:28 PM, Dan Colish wrote:
There are a variety of projects dedicated to creating C unit test
frameworks. I don't have a lot of experience with them, but I have heard
good things about check and cunit. Here's a link I found with a longer
list of frameworks. http://www.opensourcetest
> I feel like I need a better way of unit testing new code. Some of the
> code in the patch is to handle corner cases, so recreating them is
> fairly hard. It is a nagging feeling that I am missing some knowledge
> here and would welcome some insight, or research, into better ways of
> doing gener
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:45:17AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
> On 09/26/2009 10:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>If you think there's
> >>something useful I could do, let me know and I'll take a look.
> >I feel like I need a better way of unit testing new code. Some of the
> >code in the patch is to h
On 09/26/2009 10:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
If you think there's
something useful I could do, let me know and I'll take a look.
I feel like I need a better way of unit testing new code. Some of the
code in the patch is to handle corner cases, so recreating them is
fairly hard. It is a naggi
On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 09:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I estimate that making the remaining changes noted on the Wiki and
> fully
> > testing them will take at least 2 weeks. Gabriele Bartolini is assisting
> > in this area, though neither of us are able to work full time on this.
> > We still
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> Just a note to say that Hot Standby patch is now on git repository
> git://git.postgresql.org/git/users/simon/postgres
> Branch name: hot_standby
Awesome! Thanks for taking the time to get this set up.
> The complete contents of that repo
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> >Try installcheck-parallel, which should be a bit better. It's probably
> >not yet good enough though because it always runs the same tests
> >concurrently.
>
> It is also quite easy to set up your own schedule.
... except you have to be caref
401 - 500 of 971 matches
Mail list logo
