Hi all,
Please find attached a patch to add support of synchronous replication
for multiple standby servers. This is controlled by the addition of a
new GUC parameter called synchronous_standby_num, that makes server
wait for transaction commit on the first N standbys defined in
Hi,
Le 9 août 2014 05:57, Ramirez, Danilo danilo.rami...@hmhco.com a écrit :
Thanks to all for the great info. We are new to postgresql and this
discussion has both instructed us and increased our respect for the
database and the community.
I am seeing a behavior that I don’t understand and
On 20.7.2014 18:29, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Attached v9 of the patch. Aside from a few minor fixes, the main change
is that this is assumed to be combined with the dense allocation patch.
It also rewrites the ExecHashIncreaseNumBuckets to follow the same
pattern as ExecHashIncreaseNumBatches
On 2014-08-04 10:54:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Even without that issue, there's no consensus that forcibly making
orphan backends exit would be a good thing. (Some people would
like to have such an option, but the key
On 2014-08-07 21:02:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 08/08/2014 03:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
FWIW, I think it's a seriously bad idea to expose LSNs in the protocol
at all. What happens five years from now when we switch to some other
implementation
David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There's no need for a new error message I think, because we should just
ignore such indexes. After all, there might be a valid matching index
later on.
hmm, but if the user attempts
Bruce,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 08:25:04PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
FYI, pg_upgrade could be taught to refuse to upgrade from earlier 9.4
betas and report the problem JSONB columns.
That is *not* a
On 2014-08-09 14:00:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-08-04 10:54:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I believe that multiple people have said multiple times that we should
change the behavior so that orphaned backends exit immediately; I
think you
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-08-04 10:54:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I believe that multiple people have said multiple times that we should
change the behavior so that orphaned backends exit immediately; I
think you are the only one defending the current behavior.
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-08-09 14:00:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't think it's anywhere near as black-and-white as you guys claim.
What it comes down to is whether allowing existing transactions/sessions
to finish is more important than allowing new sessions to
On 2014-08-09 14:09:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-08-09 14:00:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't think it's anywhere near as black-and-white as you guys claim.
What it comes down to is whether allowing existing transactions/sessions
to
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
Trying to move the header to the end just for the sake of this
doesn't strike me as a good solution as it'll make things quite
a bit more complicated.
Why is that? How much harder would it be to add a single offset
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
Trying to move the header to the end just for the sake of this
doesn't strike me as a good solution as it'll make things quite
a bit more complicated.
Why is that? How much harder would it be to add a single
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
This *almost* applies to patched Postgres if you pick a benchmark that
is very sympathetic to my patch. To my surprise, work_mem = '10MB'
(which
On 08/10/2014 12:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-08-07 21:02:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 08/08/2014 03:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
FWIW, I think it's a seriously bad idea to expose LSNs in the protocol
at all. What happens five years from now when
15 matches
Mail list logo
