All,
Establishing an affinity between a session and one of the database
servers will only help if the traffic is strictly read-only.
I think this thread has drifted very far away from anything we're going
to do for 9.1. And seems to have little to do with synchronous replication.
Synch rep
Josh Berkus wrote:
This version of Standby Registration seems to add One More Damn Place
You Need To Configure Standby (OMDPYNTCS) without adding any
functionality you couldn't get *without* having a list on the master.
Can someone explain to me what functionality is added by this approach
vs.
Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com writes:
So I think there are definitely cases where this patch helps, but it
looks like a seq. scan is being chosen in some cases where it doesn't
help.
I've been poking through this patch, and have found two different ways
in which it underestimates the
A.M. wrote:
Perhaps a simpler tool could run a basic fsyncs-per-second test and prompt the
DBA to check that the numbers are within the realm of possibility.
This is what the test_fsync utility that already ships with the database
should be useful for. The way Bruce changed it to report
Markus Wanner wrote:
So far I've been under the impression that Simon already has the code
for quorum_commit k = 1.
What I'm opposing to is the timeout feature, which I consider to be
additional code, unneeded complexity and foot-gun.
Additional code? Yes. Foot-gun? Yes. Timeout should
Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@gmail.com writes:
I re-ordered some description in the doc. Does it look better?
Comments and suggestions welcome.
Applied with some significant editorialization. The biggest problem I
found was that the code for expression indexes didn't really work, and
Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp writes:
BTW, we could have LogicalTapeReadExact() as an alias of
LogicalTapeRead() and checking the result because we have
many duplicated codes for unexpected end of data errors.
Good idea, done.
regards, tom lane
--
(2010/10/08 0:21), Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié oct 06 17:02:22 -0400 2010:
2010/10/5 KaiGai Koheikai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
However, we also have a few headache cases.
DefineType()
All,
I thought we fixed this in 8.4.4, but apparently not. In the event that
you have a GIN index containing a WHERE clause which is sufficiently
restrictive, PostgreSQL will attempt to use the index even though it
can't. Since this is completely out of the control of the user, it
effectively
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
today I found a few bugs:
a) parser allow a labels on invalid positions with strange runtime bug:
postgres=# CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION foo()
RETURNS void AS $$
BEGIN
FOR i IN 1..2
invalidLabel
LOOP
b) SRF functions must not be finished by RETURN statement - I know, so
there is outer default block, but it looks like inconsistency for SRF
functions, because you can use a RETURN NEXT without RETURN. It maybe
isn't bug - but I am filling it as inconsistency.
Hmmm. Is there any likelyhood
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
This version of Standby Registration seems to add One More Damn Place
You Need To Configure Standby (OMDPYNTCS) without adding any
functionality you couldn't get *without* having a list on the master.
Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@gmail.com writes:
I wrote a patch to improve CLUSTER VERBOSE (and VACUUM FULL VERBOSE).
The patch should be applied after sorted_cluster-20100721.patch .
Applied with minor fixes; in particular, I think you got the effects of
rewrite_heap_dead_tuple backwards.
2010/10/4 Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com:
I've reworked patch with your suggestion. In this version I found a little
slowdown in comparison with previous version:
SELECT * FROM words WHERE levenshtein_less_equal(a, 'extensize', 2) = 2;
48,069 ms = 57,875 ms
SELECT * FROM words2 WHERE
On 10/07/2010 03:37 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 21:31, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 10/07/2010 10:11 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
OTOH, this patch seems pretty small and simple to maintain.
True, it is rather small.
Does anybody know if there's an
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch wrote:
Yeah, sounds more likely. Then I'm surprised that I didn't find any
warning that the Protocol C definitely reduces availability (with the
ko-count=0 default, that is).
Really? I don't think that ko-count=0 means
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
b) SRF functions must not be finished by RETURN statement - I know, so
there is outer default block, but it looks like inconsistency for SRF
functions, because you can use a
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
In general, salvaging the WAL that was not sent to the standby yet is
outright impossible. You can't achieve zero data loss with asynchronous
replication at all.
No. That depends on the type of
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
In general, salvaging the WAL that was not sent to the standby yet is
outright impossible. You can't achieve zero data loss
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
a) parser allow a labels on invalid positions with strange runtime bug:
postgres=# CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION foo()
RETURNS void AS $$
BEGIN
FOR i IN 1..2
invalidLabel
LOOP
RAISE NOTICE '%',i;
END LOOP;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
I thought we fixed this in 8.4.4, but apparently not. In the event that
you have a GIN index containing a WHERE clause which is sufficiently
restrictive, PostgreSQL will attempt to use the index even though it
can't.
We could probably kluge the planner
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
From my experience operating londiste, those states would be:
1. base-backup — self explaining
2. catch-up — getting the WAL to catch up after base backup
3. wanna-sync — don't yet have all the WAL to get
On 10/07/2010 09:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/07/2010 03:37 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 21:31, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net
wrote:
On 10/07/2010 10:11 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
OTOH, this patch seems pretty small and simple to maintain.
True, it is
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
You seem willing to trade anything for that guarantee. I seek a more
pragmatic approach that balances availability and risk.
Those views are different, but not inconsistent. Oracle manages to offer
multiple options and
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch wrote:
Of course, it doesn't make sense to wait-forever on *every* standby that
ever gets added. Quorum commit is required, yes (and that's what this
thread is about, IIRC). But with quorum commit, adding a standby only
improves
Hello
2010/10/8 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
a) parser allow a labels on invalid positions with strange runtime bug:
postgres=# CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION foo()
RETURNS void AS $$
BEGIN
FOR i IN 1..2
invalidLabel
LOOP
RAISE NOTICE
2010/10/8 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
b) SRF functions must not be finished by RETURN statement - I know, so
there is outer default block, but it looks like inconsistency
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 19:44 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
I don't see this as needing any implementation any more complicated than
the usual way such timeouts are handled. Note how long you've been
trying to reach the standby. Default to -1 for forever. And if you hit
the timeout, mark the
On 07.10.2010 23:56, Greg Stark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
The standby name is a GUC in the standby's configuration file:
standby_name='bostonserver'
Fwiw I was hoping it would be possible to set every machine up
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@gmail.com writes:
I wrote a patch to improve CLUSTER VERBOSE (and VACUUM FULL VERBOSE).
The patch should be applied after sorted_cluster-20100721.patch .
Applied with minor fixes; in
On 07.10.2010 21:33, Josh Berkus wrote:
1) This version of Standby Registration seems to add One More Damn Place
You Need To Configure Standby (OMDPYNTCS) without adding any
functionality you couldn't get *without* having a list on the master.
Can someone explain to me what functionality is
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Additional code? Yes. Foot-gun? Yes. Timeout should be disabled by
default so that you get wait forever unless you ask for something different?
Probably. Unneeded? This is where we don't agree anymore. The example
101 - 132 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
