On lör, 2012-04-28 at 11:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On fre, 2012-04-27 at 22:30 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
In the few cases where I investigated it TMs don't use transactions
themselves (which I think is correct, they don't need them), so
On fre, 2012-04-27 at 14:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I think there is no point at all in having a discussion about this
unless we can first agree that the overwhelming majority of people who
have commented on this issue on this list are unhappy with the current
default behavior. If we are
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
So lets implement the new shutdown mode and work out a transition path
to a new default. Changing rapidly screws up the people we love the
most.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote:
As to what LCRs should contain, it will probably be locical equivalents
of INSERT, UPDATE ... LIMIT 1, DELETE ... LIMIT 1, TRUNCATE and all DDL.
Yeh
I would even go as far as propose a variant for DML-WITH-LIMIT-1 to be
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's not go looking for reasons to
reject the approach just because we didn't expect it to work as well
as it does.
Who here, in your opinion, is looking for reasons to reject anything?
--
Simon Riggs
There might be a patch available for this already. In the worst case
articulated above (less than 64 columns), if all the nulls are trailing
nulls, the bitmap need not be saved. Actually it is not 64(actually 72), as
postgres heaptupleheader is only 23 bytes and one byte is left for the
start of
Hi Alexander,
Perhaps I'm too early with these tests, but FWIW I reran my earlier test
program against three
instances. (the patches compiled fine, and make check was without problem).
-- 3 instances:
HEAD port 6542
trgm_regex port 6547 HEAD + trgm-regexp patch (22
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
But if you set it in the postgresql.conf file, it's not pretty:
kevin@kevin-desktop:~$ psql -p 5433 test
psql: FATAL: can not create a serializable snapshot during recovery
Ideas?
The patch as submitted
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ dev...@gunduz.org wrote:
(As a side note, RPMs *may not* be ready, because I (and Magnus) will be
at PGDay Turkey on 12th, and will be busy over the whole weekend).
Is that a closed meeting? I hadn't seen any mention of that anywhere.
--
Simon
Simon Riggs wrote:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
But if you set it in the postgresql.conf file, it's not pretty:
kevin@kevin-desktop:~$ psql -p 5433 test
psql: FATAL: can not create a serializable snapshot during
recovery
Ideas?
The patch as submitted doesn't do anything useful for the case
Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner writes:
Well, the xReader approach (Aakash's GSoC project) is to serve as
a proxy for a WAL stream going to a hot standby, to interpret each
incoming WAL record by cheating and querying the HS before
passing the WAL along, and then using sync rep to the HS
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
In any case, if either the existing session of the TM is cut or it
cannot create a new connection, it will, after some time, have to give
up roll back the prepared transactions on the other servers. So some
kind of setting to not shut down if there are
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On fre, 2012-04-27 at 14:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I think there is no point at all in having a discussion about this
unless we can first agree that the overwhelming majority of people who
have commented on this issue on this list are unhappy with
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
In any case, if either the existing session of the TM is cut or it
cannot create a new connection, it will, after some time, have to give
up roll back the prepared transactions on the
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 14:23, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ dev...@gunduz.org wrote:
(As a side note, RPMs *may not* be ready, because I (and Magnus) will be
at PGDay Turkey on 12th, and will be busy over the whole weekend).
Is that
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I think we only need one new mode, shutdown when transactions are
finished should only shutdown when all types of transaction are
complete. For people that don't use prepared transactions the
difference is irrelevant. For people that do use prepared
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
IMHO the desired behaviour would be
* prevent default_transaction_isolation = serializable as a default
setting when we enter Hot Standby by throwing a FATAL error from
the startup process. I can help
Simon Riggs wrote:
The only way default_transaction_isolation = serializable would be
acceptable when hot_standby = on is if we silently downgrade the
isolation level to read committed. That way everything just works,
albeit not quite as requested. So I think that's the best way
forwards.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
It would be enormously more performant for the master to be
emitting logical replication records to start with, since it
already has all the right names etc at hand at basically no cost.
Not when the consumers
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 12:03 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote:
As to what LCRs should contain, it will probably be locical equivalents
of INSERT, UPDATE ... LIMIT 1, DELETE ... LIMIT 1, TRUNCATE and all DDL.
Yeh
I would
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I think we only need one new mode, shutdown when transactions are
finished should only shutdown when all types of transaction are
complete. For people that don't use prepared
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 12:03 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote:
As to what LCRs should contain, it will probably be locical equivalents
of INSERT, UPDATE
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
The only way default_transaction_isolation = serializable would be
acceptable when hot_standby = on is if we silently downgrade the
isolation level to read committed. That way everything
On sön, 2012-04-29 at 10:19 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
Maybe we don't need to do this over multiple releases, but we do need
to give warning of possible incompatibilities. It would be good to see
a specific post on hackers called Planned Incompatibilities in 9.2,
or collect such things on the
I didn't find a good way to find out how many digits a numeric value has
or things like whether a numeric value is an integer. (I had to go
through bc(1) for the latter.) Functions like precision() and scale()
would have been quite handy. Are there other ways to do this, or would
this make a
Magnus Hagander wrote:
2012/4/28 Josh Berkusj...@agliodbs.com:
Ugh. Maybe the whole idea of getting a beta out before PGCon is doomed.
Still, if we don't try for this schedule, we're looking at at least two
more weeks' slip, because we're surely not going to wrap during PGCon.
We could do it
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am again requesting the addition of options to tools/git_changelog so
I can more easily produce the release notes. I asked for this during
9.1 development and it was rejected. I am currently using my own
custom version of the tool, but have to merge community
Simon Riggs wrote:
Though it isn't a given that logical change records (LCRs) will
require more bandwidth than physical WAL.
It would help if you could share a little more of what you have in
mind. It's not yet clear to me whether you're talking about adding
logical records to the WAL
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
The only way default_transaction_isolation = serializable would
be acceptable when hot_standby = on is if we silently downgrade
the isolation level to read committed. That way everything just
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
* prevent default_transaction_isolation = serializable as a default
setting when we enter Hot Standby by throwing a FATAL error from the
startup process. I can help implement that if we agree.
I am strongly disinclined
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55:15PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
Concerning everyone's favorite topic, how to name the new type of table, I
liked Tom's proposal[1] to make CREATE TEMP TABLE retain current behavior and
have CREATE GLOBAL TEMP TABLE and/or CREATE LOCAL TEMP TABLE request the new
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Though it isn't a given that logical change records (LCRs) will
require more bandwidth than physical WAL.
It would help if you could share a little more of what you have in
mind. It's not
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Translating WAL is a very hard task.
No kidding. I would think it's impossible on its face. Just for
starters, where will you get table and column names from? (Looking at
the
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On sön, 2012-04-29 at 10:19 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
Maybe we don't need to do this over multiple releases, but we do need
to give warning of possible incompatibilities. It would be good to see
a specific post on hackers
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's not go looking for reasons to
reject the approach just because we didn't expect it to work as well
as it does.
Who here, in your opinion,
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Erred on the side of progress might even be a little strong, because
I think for the most part we have been extremely judicious about
backward incompatibilities in the last few releases (which is a good
thing). Obviously, 8.3 was a flag day of the
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 16:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Translating WAL is a very hard task.
No kidding. I would think it's impossible on its face. Just for
starters, where
Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of jue abr 26 11:10:09 -0300 2012:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I will also be organising a small-medium sized Future of In-Core
Replication meeting in Ottawa on Wed 16 May, 6-10pm.
Thanks for such rapid
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I like the idea of including the word block in there. I don't think
it was probably a terribly good idea to abbreviate that to blk
everywhere, but at this point it's probably better to be consistent,
sigh.
As for track_iotiming - track_io_timing,
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 13:23 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
(As a side note, RPMs *may not* be ready, because I (and Magnus)
will be
at PGDay Turkey on 12th, and will be busy over the whole weekend).
Is that a closed meeting? I hadn't seen any mention of that anywhere.
Not that much. I've been
Excerpts from Ryan Kelly's message of sáb ene 14 16:22:21 -0300 2012:
I have attached a new patch which handles the connect_timeout option by
adding a PQconnectTimeout(conn) function to access the connect_timeout
which I then use to retrieve the existing value from the old connection.
Was
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Erred on the side of progress might even be a little strong, because
I think for the most part we have been extremely judicious about
backward incompatibilities in the last few
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think the question we should be asking ourselves is not whether WAL
as it currently exists is adequate for logical replication, but rather
or not it could be made adequate.
Agreed.
And of course I meant but rather
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
So you basically need a large part of postgres for reliably making sense
of WAL.
Agreed, but I think that's a problem we need to fix and not a
tolerable situation at all. If
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
So you basically need a large part of postgres for reliably making sense
of WAL.
Agreed, but I think
45 matches
Mail list logo
