On 15 May 2012 17:51, Robert Haas wrote:
> More accurately, he seems to have thought that group commit was
> already there, and he'd improved it. So saying that we're getting it
> for the first time ten years later seems pretty odd to me.
Maybe it's odd, and maybe it's inconsistent with earlier
I've switched servers yesterday night and the previous slave is now
the master. This is 9.0.6 (originally) / 9.0.7 (now) on Linux.
Now I'm seeing a bunch of
ERROR: could not open relation with OID 1990987633
STATEMENT: create temp table seen_files (fileid integer)
Interestingly enough, 90% of
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Here is a draft design for the transforms feature, which I'd like to
work on. The purpose of this is to allow adapting types to languages.
The most popular case is to enable converting hstore to something useful
like a dict or a hash in PL/Python or PL/Perl, respectively.
Here is a draft design for the transforms feature, which I'd like to
work on. The purpose of this is to allow adapting types to languages.
The most popular case is to enable converting hstore to something useful
like a dict or a hash in PL/Python or PL/Perl, respectively. In
general, the type and
> Before restarting it, you need to do pg_basebackup and make a base
> backup
> onto the standby again. Since you started the standby without
> recovery.conf,
> a series of WAL in the standby has gotten inconsistent with that in
> the master.
> So you need a fresh backup to restart the standby.
Y
Fujii,
Wait, are you telling me that we *still* can't remaster from streaming
replication? Why wasn't that fixed in 9.2?
And: if we still have to ship logs, what's the point in even having cascading
replication?
- Original Message -
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Thom Brown wrote
On 15 May 2012 13:15, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> However, this isn't true when I restart the standby. I've been
>> informed that this should work fine if a WAL archive has been
>> configured (which should be used anyway).
>
> The WAL archive should
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Doing some beta testing, managed to produce this issue using the daily
> snapshot from Tuesday:
>
> 1. Created master server, loaded it with a couple dummy databases.
>
> 2. Created standby server.
>
> 3. Did pg_basebackup -x stream on standby
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
> However, this isn't true when I restart the standby. I've been
> informed that this should work fine if a WAL archive has been
> configured (which should be used anyway).
The WAL archive should be shared by master-replica and replica-replica,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> I'd vote for starting a separate thread to solicit people's opinions
> on whether we need names in the release notes. Is there anybody on
> -hackers who would be offended, or would have a harder time persuading
> $BOSS to let them spend time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Bruce wrote:
> In summary, names on release note items potentially have the
> following beneficial effects:
>
> * Encouraging new developers/reviewers
> * Encouraging long-established developers
> * Showing appreciation to developers
> * As
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 05/11/2012 05:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>>
>> But in the interest of actually being productive - what *is* the
>> usecase for needing a 5 minute turnaround time? I don't buy the "check
>> what a patch looks like", because that
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The mere ability to notice that an XLogFlush() call is unnecessary and
> fastpath out could be argued to be an aboriginal group commit,
> predating even commit_delay, as could skipping duplicate fsync()
> requests in XLogWrite(), which I th
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> These results are astonishingly good, and I can't reproduce them. I
>> spent some time this morning messing around with this on the IBM
>> POWER7 machine and my MacBook Pro. Neither of these have
>> exceptionally good fsync performance, and
On 13 May 2012 16:08, Josh Berkus wrote:
> More issues: promoting intermediate standby breaks replication.
>
> To be a bit blunt here, has anyone tested cascading replication *at all*
> before this?
>
> So, same setup as previous message.
>
> 1. Shut down master-master.
>
> 2. pg_ctl promote maste
A customer reported a mysterious crash, with the backtrace showing it to
come from several levels down deep in the infix() function, called by
tsqueryout(). I was eventually able to reproduce this and hunt down the
bug, using the same tsquery string as the customer.
The bug was actually in to_
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> My comments were appropriate: if I tried to suggest we add
> commit_delay as a feature, it would be rejected and rightly so.
Fair point.
> Some
> caution in its removal is appropriate, but since we've been discussing
> it since before your f
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> Keeping a parameter without any clue as to whether it has benefit is
>>> just wasting people's time.
>>>
>>> We don't ADD param
On Monday, May 14, 2012 07:55:32 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> > On Friday, May 11, 2012 08:45:23 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Andres Freund writes:
> >> > Its the only place though which knows whether its actually sensible to
> >> > wakeup the walsen
Jim,
I didn't get as far as running any tests, actually. All I did was try to set
up 3 servers in cascading replication. Then I tried shutting down
master-master and promoting master-replica. That's it.
- Original Message -
> On May 13, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > More i
On 15 May 2012 15:17, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Peter Geoghegan
> wrote:
>> On 14 May 2012 15:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I don't have a strong opinion
>>> about that, and welcome discussion. But I'm always going to be
>>> opposed to adding or removing things on the
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> Keeping a parameter without any clue as to whether it has benefit is
>> just wasting people's time.
>>
>> We don't ADD parameters based on supposition, why should we avoid
>> removing p
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 14 May 2012 15:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't have a strong opinion
>> about that, and welcome discussion. But I'm always going to be
>> opposed to adding or removing things on the basis of what we didn't
>> test.
>
> The subject o
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:21:20AM +0200, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Noah Misch wrote:
> > Just thinking out loud, we could provide an "extern Datum
> AnalyzeWideValue;"
> > and direct FDW authors to use that particular datum. It could look
> like a
> > toasted datum of external size WIDTH_THRESHOLD+1
24 matches
Mail list logo
