On tis, 2012-05-29 at 22:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Yeah, good arguments all around, i agree too :-) Next question is -
suggestions for naming of said paramter?
--xlog-method=something? And/or -Xsomething, which would automatically
enable -x?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Hi all,
Recently I was writing an application to implement automated failover with
env: Two 2008 R2 servers, Network area storage, asynchronous replication,
WAL archive on primary enabled.
Is there any way to avoid starting standby server always from base backup in
automated failover. I see the
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Buffer pins aren't a cache: with a cache you are trying to mask a slow
operation (like a disk i/o) with a faster such that the amount of slow
operations
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 05:10:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:52:59AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
It seems that pg_upgrade needs a check to make sure that the bootstrap
superuser is named the same in old and new clusters.
The
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Note sure about the rest of this patch, but this part is definitely bogus:
+#if !defined(pg_atomic_fetch_and_set)
+#define pg_atomic_fetch_and_set(dst, src, value) \
+ do { S_LOCK(dummy_spinlock); \
+ dst =
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
it doesn't say that is not possible to use this for a standby
server... probably that's why i get the error i put a recovery.conf
after pg_basebackup finished... maybe we can say that more loudly?
The idea is, if
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2012/6/1 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
It may be an option to separate the case into two; a situation to execute
the given query immediately
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Note sure about the rest of this patch, but this part is definitely bogus:
+#if !defined(pg_atomic_fetch_and_set)
+#define pg_atomic_fetch_and_set(dst,
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
it doesn't say that is not possible to use this for a standby
server... probably that's why i get the error i put a recovery.conf
after pg_basebackup
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
What happens (in the very unlikely, but possible case?) if another
backend races to the buffer you've pointed at with 'victim'? It looks
like multiple backends share the clock sweep now, but don't you need
to need an
2012/6/4 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2012/6/1 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
It may be an option to separate the case into two; a
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
What happens (in the very unlikely, but possible case?) if another
backend races to the buffer you've pointed at with 'victim'? It looks
like
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net
wrote:
it doesn't say that is not possible to use this for a standby
server...
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net
wrote:
it
On Jun4, 2012, at 17:38 , Kohei KaiGai wrote:
I'm worry about future maintenance issues, once we have
RLSBYPASS permission or something user visible…
I fear that without a generic way to disable RLS regardless which
RLS policy function is in effect, we're creating a huge maintenance
issue for
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
No, it's more a there's no reason to do that. I don't think it
should necessarily be an actual problem.
Ok, good to know.
In your case the missing piece of information is why was there a
timeline switch? pg_basebackup
We have a 8.3.18 system (yes, the same one from the previous
thread, finally upgraded!) that gave us this error yesterday:
ERROR: index pg_class_oid_index is not a btree
It seems like this happened from just a normal SELECT query, and did
not occur again (and this is a very busy system) The
2012/6/4 Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org:
On Jun4, 2012, at 17:38 , Kohei KaiGai wrote:
I'm worry about future maintenance issues, once we have
RLSBYPASS permission or something user visible…
I fear that without a generic way to disable RLS regardless which
RLS policy function is in effect,
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
What happens (in the very unlikely, but possible case?) if another
backend
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes:
Here is two problems around RLSBYPASS. The first is we have
no idea to handle invalidation of prepared-statement when current
user is switched, right now.
How is that specifically the fault of RLSBYPASS? *Any* of the schemes
you're proposing for
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@endpoint.com writes:
We have a 8.3.18 system (yes, the same one from the previous
thread, finally upgraded!) that gave us this error yesterday:
ERROR: index pg_class_oid_index is not a btree
That means you got bogus data while reading the metapage.
I'm beginning to
2012/6/4 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes:
Here is two problems around RLSBYPASS. The first is we have
no idea to handle invalidation of prepared-statement when current
user is switched, right now.
How is that specifically the fault of RLSBYPASS? *Any* of
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Michael Nolan htf...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/12, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On the other hand, if we simply say PostgreSQL computes the
replication delay by subtracting the time at which the WAL was
generated,
On 5/26/12 10:16 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
My idea is secure to separator - because separator is just space and
new line and these symbols are escaped.
ISTM it'd be a really good idea to support something other than space, since
presumably that'd be trivial.
I'm not a fan of supporting the
On 5/27/12 2:54 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
On 27-05-2012 10:45, Fujii Masao wrote:
OK, let me propose another approach: add pg_size_pretty(int).
If we do this, all usability and performance problems will be solved.
I wouldn't like to add another function but if it solves both problems... +1.
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Alexander, do you still have the test environments and data lying around
that you used for GiST buffering testing
Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net writes:
On 5/27/12 2:54 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
On 27-05-2012 10:45, Fujii Masao wrote:
OK, let me propose another approach: add pg_size_pretty(int).
I wouldn't like to add another function but if it solves both problems... +1.
FWIW, I would argue that the case of
On Jun4, 2012, at 18:38 , Kohei KaiGai wrote:
2012/6/4 Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org:
Without something like RLSBYPASS, the DBA needs to have intimate
knowledge about the different RLS policies to e.g. guarantee that his
backups aren't missing crucial information, or that the replication
system
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
On Jun4, 2012, at 18:38 , Kohei KaiGai wrote:
2012/6/4 Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org:
Without something like RLSBYPASS, the DBA needs to have intimate
knowledge about the different RLS policies to e.g. guarantee that his
backups aren't missing crucial
Introduction:
=
A lot of progress has been made on the checksums issue, with Simon's
excellent work beginning to gain consensus:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CA
+u5nmkw_gbs6qq_y8-rjgl1v7mvw2hwbhartb8lojhnpfx...@mail.gmail.com
For the purposes of this
30 matches
Mail list logo
