On 02.01.2011 00:40, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 1/1/11 5:59 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
well you keep saying that but to be honest I cannot really even see a
usecase for me - what is only a random one of a set of servers is sync
at any time and I don't really know which one.
My usecases would al
On 01.01.2011 23:21, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I've got low-level routines coded for interfacing predicate.c to SLRU
to handle old committed transactions, so that SSI can deal with
situations where a large number of transactions are run during the
lifetime of a single serializable transaction. I'm
On 01/02/2011 09:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 02.01.2011 00:40, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 1/1/11 5:59 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
well you keep saying that but to be honest I cannot really even see a
usecase for me - what is only a random one of a set of servers is sync
at any time and
On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 10:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
BTW, there's a bunch of replication related stuff that we should work
to close, that are IMHO more important than synchronous replication.
Like making the standby follow timeline changes, to make failovers
smoother, and the facility
Typo, I think:
- (errmsg(skipping \%s\ --- cannot vacuum indexes,
views, or special system tables,
+ (errmsg(skipping \%s\ --- cannot only non-tables or
special system tables,
//Magnus
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 05:48, Robert Haas rh...@postgresql.org wrote:
Basic
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 06:32, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
We're coming the end of the 9.1 development cycle, and I think that
there is a serious danger of insufficient bandwidth to handle the
large patches we have outstanding. For my part, I am hoping to find
the bandwidth to
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 19:49, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 29, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
We can be held responsible for the packaging decisions if they use
*our* make install commands, imho.
Yep.
So, as I see it there are two ways of
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 22:11 -0500, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 14:40 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Standby in general deals with the A,D,R triangle (Availability,
Durability, Response time). Any one
On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 10:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Frankly, if Simon hadn't already submitted code, I'd be pushing for
single-standby-only for 9.1, instead of any one.
Yes, we are awfully late, but let's not panic.
Yes, we're about a year late. Getting a simple feature like
Hi,
I ran into the problem of getting the last n elements out of an array
and while some workarounds do exist:
(http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2949881/getting-the-last-element-of-a-postgres-array-declaratively)
I was still annoyed that I couldn't just ask for the last n values in an
array
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
The problem occurs on ALTER OPERATOR FAMILY ... SET EXTENSION, that's
what dichotomy on the citext.upgrade.sql tells me.
The code in question was copy/pasted from the SET SCHEMA code path in
gram.y then other related files. So I just tested a
On 2.1.2011 5:36, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Yes, working out the math is a good idea. Things are much clearer if we
do that.
Let's assume we have 98% availability on any single server.
1. Having one primary and 2 standbys,
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
make -C contrib/citext install
psql -f .../head/share/contrib/citext.sql
psql
dim=# do $$ begin execute 'alter operator class public.citext_ops using
btree set schema utils'; end; $$;
server closed the connection unexpectedly
On Jan2, 2011, at 11:45 , Valtonen, Hannu wrote:
I ran into the problem of getting the last n elements out of an array and
while some workarounds do exist:
(http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2949881/getting-the-last-element-of-a-postgres-array-declaratively)
I was still annoyed that I
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Typo, I think:
- (errmsg(skipping \%s\ --- cannot vacuum indexes,
views, or special system tables,
+ (errmsg(skipping \%s\ --- cannot only non-tables or
special system tables,
Oops, fixed.
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 19:49, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 29, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
We can be held responsible for the packaging decisions if they use
*our*
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
As for priority between those that *were* submitted earlier, and have
been reworked (which is how the system is supposed to work), it's a
lot harder. And TBH, I think we're going to have a problem getting all
those
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
BTW, there's a bunch of replication related stuff that we should work to
close, that are IMHO more important than synchronous replication. Like
making the standby follow timeline changes, to make failovers smoother, and
the
(2011/01/02 14:32), Robert Haas wrote:
We're coming the end of the 9.1 development cycle, and I think that
there is a serious danger of insufficient bandwidth to handle the
large patches we have outstanding. For my part, I am hoping to find
the bandwidth to two, MAYBE three major commits
On mån, 2010-12-06 at 14:47 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On sön, 2010-09-19 at 14:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Or maybe we could implement that function, call it like this
CAST((pg_sequence_parameters(c.oid)).max_value AS
cardinal_number) AS maximum_value,
and plan on
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 23:36 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Yes, working out the math is a good idea. Things are much clearer if we
do that.
Let's assume we have 98% availability on any single server.
1. Having one
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Nothing checking for the hi-bit flag AFAICS. I guess the code that
uses that would do check it.
Right. After getting this layer done, I went off to watch the
Badgers in the Rose Bowl, leaving that coding for today. ;-)
But wouldn't it be simpler to mark the
Seems reasonable. Does the victim backend currently know why it has been
killed?
I don't think so.
One idea is postmaster sets a flag in the shared memory area
indicating it rceived SIGTERM before forwarding the signal to
backends.
Backend check the flag and if it's not set, it
Seems reasonable. Does the victim backend currently know why it has been
killed?
I don't think so.
One idea is postmaster sets a flag in the shared memory area
indicating it rceived SIGTERM before forwarding the signal to
backends.
Backend check the flag and if it's not set, it
On tis, 2010-12-28 at 13:13 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
My pg_streamrecv no longer works with 9.1, because it returns
PGRES_COPY_BOTH instead of PGRES_COPY_OUT when initating a copy.
That's fine.
So I'd like to make it work on both. Specifically, I would like it to
check for
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 23:36 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Simon Riggs
wrote:
Yes, working out the math is a good idea. Things are much clearer
if we do that.
Let's assume we have 98% availability on any single server.
1. Having one primary
On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 08:08 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I think you're talking about different metrics, and you're both
right. With two servers configured in sync rep your chance of having
an available (running) server is 99.9992%. The chance that you know
that you have one that is totally
On 02.01.2011 14:47, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
BTW, there's a bunch of replication related stuff that we should work to
close, that are IMHO more important than synchronous replication. Like
making the standby follow timeline changes,
Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org writes:
Comments are welcome.
This is a bad idea. It makes an already-poorly-tested code path
significantly more fragile, in return for nothing of value.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 02.01.2011 15:41, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 23:36 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Yes, working out the math is a good idea. Things are much clearer if we
do that.
Let's assume we have 98% availability on any
Simon Riggs wrote:
Do you agree that requiring response from 2 sync standbys, or
locking up, gives us 94% server availability, but 99.9992% data
durability?
I'm not sure how to answer that. The calculations so far have been
based around up-time and the probabilities that you have a
On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 11:11 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Do you agree that requiring response from 2 sync standbys, or
locking up, gives us 94% server availability, but 99.9992% data
durability?
I'm not sure how to answer that. The calculations so far have been
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4c80d9b8.2020...@enterprisedb.com
That just needs to be polished into shape, and documentation.
Wow, cool! I don't know how but I've missed it.
+1. Or maybe it would be better make it a
Robert Haas wrote:
- true serializability - not entirely sure of the status of this
I try to keep the status section of the Wiki page up-to-date. I have
just reviewed it and tweaked it for the latest events:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Serializable#Current_Status
There are a number
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
reads MySQL documentation
I see now that you've tried to design this feature in a way that is
similar to MySQL's offering, which does have some value. But it
appears to me that the documentation you've written here is
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 05:13 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
On 12/31/10, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
2. sync does not guarantee that the updates to the standbys are in any
way coordinated. You can run a query on
Hello. Maybe are any often bugs? they may be found by more asserts to
track internal state of structures. Or tools like lastly developed
script for c++ keywords.
--
Sent from my mobile device
pasman
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 12:13 -0800, MARK CALLAGHAN wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
reads MySQL documentation
I see now that you've tried to design this feature in a way that is
similar to MySQL's offering, which does have some value. But it
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 18:53, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4c80d9b8.2020...@enterprisedb.com
That just needs to be polished into shape, and documentation.
I have an
On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 18:54 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I believe we all agree that there's different use cases that require
different setups. Both first-past-the-post and wait-for-all-to-ack
have their uses.
Robert's analysis is that first-past-the-post doesn't actually improve
the
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Yes, especially since we discussed it in Stuttgart. I guess it may
have been during the party...
I remember we talked about it, I didn't remember a patch had reached the list…
Yes, if it should go in any of the current binaries, initdb would be
the
On lör, 2011-01-01 at 17:21 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with having 20 or 30 messages of variants of
foo cannot be used on bar
without placeholders.
Well, that's OK with me. It seems a little grotty, but manageably so.
Questions:
1. Should we try to
On Dec 31, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
2010/12/31 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
Please call it something other than snapshot. There's already about 3
tools called something similar and a couple of different meanings of the
term in the world of Postgres.
Thanks, good point.
I believe that Dave Page wants to move to building pg for windows
using visual C++ 2010 some time this year. That alone may be enough of
a reason to check for C++0x keywords in headers:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2010/04/06/c-0x-core-language-features-in-vc10-the-table.aspx
I think
Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org writes:
Comments are welcome.
This is a bad idea. It makes an already-poorly-tested code path
significantly more fragile, in return for nothing of value.
Are you saying that procsignal.c is the already-poorly-tested one? If
so, why?
As for value, I have
On Mon, 2010-12-27 at 14:39 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 13:09, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
This patch adds counters and views to monitor hot standby generated
recovery conflicts. It extends the pg_stat_database view with one
column with the total
On Tue, 2010-12-28 at 09:10 -0600, Andy Colson wrote:
I know its been discussed before, and one big problem is license and
patent problems.
Would like to see a design for that. There's a few different ways we
might want to do that, and I'm interested to see if its possible to get
compressed
2011/1/2 Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net
Renamed to fsnapshot.
Is it actually limited to functions? ISTM this concept would be valuable
for anything that's not in pg_class (in other words, anything that doesn't
have user data in it).
My ambition is to primarily support functions. Support for
2011/1/3 Joel Jacobson j...@gluefinance.com
2011/1/2 Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net
Is it actually limited to functions? ISTM this concept would be valuable
for anything that's not in pg_class (in other words, anything that doesn't
have user data in it).
Instead of limiting the support to
On 01/02/2011 07:44 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
Also, I'm not sure why this needs to be in contrib vs pgFoundry.
Good point. It's actually in neither of them right now, it's only at
github.com http://github.com :) I merely used the prefix contrib/ in
the subject line to indicate it's not
On 2.1.2011 5:36, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Yes, working out the math is a good idea. Things are much clearer if we
do that.
Let's assume we have 98% availability on any single server.
1. Having one primary and 2 standbys,
Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
I'm confused. Are you saying that the patch is supposed to lock the
table against concurrent INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/MERGE? Because I don't
see it in the patch, and the symptoms you're having are a clear
indication of the fact that it's not happening. I also seem to
Hi,
i'v created a patch enables support for building PostgreSQL with Visual
Studio 2010 or Microsoft Windows SDK for Windows 7 and .NET Framework 4
(Windows SDK 7.1).
You can grab it from http://www.piening.info/VS2010.patch
It only touches the .pl, .pm and .bat files in src/tools/msvc so
53 matches
Mail list logo
