urce)
> why wouldn't we just do that? Why wouldn't EDB develop directly within the
> Pg infrastructure. Why wouldn't we build teams around the best and
> brightest between EDB, 2Q and Citus?
>
> Egos.
>
> Consider PgLogical, who is working on this outside of 2Q?
of MVCC, which is the root cause of those
secondary effects.
I don't think the current focus on manually intensive DDL partitioning is
the right way forwards. I did once; I don't now.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
y to backtrack to find what broke. Not much point
finding bugs we can't identify later.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 28 April 2016 at 22:30, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2016, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> On 27 April 2016 at 17:04, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 April 2016 at 21:44, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>>> Petr Jelinek writes:
>&g
are already good, it's just a matter of making people
> think twice and actually look at them.
>
If fsync=off and you turn it on, does it fsync anything at that point?
Or does it mean only that future fsyncs will occur?
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
et me know if you'd like me to update the TODO.
>
If you've got an itch, expecting someone else to scratch it is less likely
to succeed.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 18 April 2016 at 13:15, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 18 April 2016 at 12:43, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>> > Andres Freund wrote:
>> >> On 2016-04-15 15:26:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
an alternate solution may be better.
If things are sequential, both sides can +1 as appropriate. So an extra
message isn't required to confirm that. We can resync with optional
additional info at various points. Requesting cancellation of a former
sequence number can still be blocked
ostgresql.
The default setting would be simply 'postgresql', so no match -> syntax
error.
We could make that easier by making the postgresql parser a plugin itself.
So to produce a new one you just copy the files, modify them as needed then
insert a new record into pg_language as an ex
cation that they need to be upgraded; the standby is down for
> > some time, but there is no data loss or corruption.
>
> Yeah, introducing a new WAL record to address this issue in
> back-branches would not be an issue, and that's what we should do. For
> HEAD, let's ad
On 15 April 2016 at 20:01, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-15 19:59:06 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > For me, the issue is that we need to do something to catch bugs. The
> > existing code does not have any test at all to check whether we are doing
> > the wrong thing - i
ets the wrong thing happen.
Fixing it by forcing a new behaviour might be the right thing to do going
forwards, but I don't much like the idea of forcing new behaviour in back
branches. It might fix this bug, but can easily cause others.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
conflict.
>
If everything is going to be discussed here, that's great, no conflict.
I've got lots of changes I would personally like to make, but we need to
get something in first before we start doing more.
I'll look back at the review comments, thanks.
--
Simon Riggs
On 14 April 2016 at 02:05, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2016-04-13 09:38:39 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > If we want this in 9.7
>
> I desperately want logical replication for 9.7. And I'm planning to put
> in a good chunk of work to make that happen in some w
On 13 April 2016 at 17:48, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Simon Riggs
> wrote:
> > Anyway, who agrees with the overall design of pglogical and who does not?
>
> I haven't spent very much time on it yet. I tend to prefer the idea
> of integratin
uild up a library of test cases over
time to assist with that.
If we agree this is worth further work, I'll take responsibility for it in
9.7.
Anyway, who agrees with the overall design of pglogical and who does not?
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2
On 12 April 2016 at 13:53, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Simon Riggs
> wrote:
> > On 8 April 2016 at 17:49, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> With the patch, you can - if you wish - substitute
> >> some other number for the one the planner comes
On 12 April 2016 at 07:58, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Simon Riggs
> wrote:
>
>> On 8 April 2016 at 17:49, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>>
>>> With the patch, you can - if you wish - substitute
>>> some other number for the
change the answer from a
SELECT, whereas this affects only the default for a plan.
Can I change this to a lower setting? I would have done this before
applying the patch, but you beat me to it.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL
plication 1? An image histogram 1000?
>
We don't have a clear methodology for how to do this.
It's a single parameter to allow you to achieve the plans that work
optimally. Hopefully that is simple enough for everyone to use and yet
flexible enough to make a difference.
If its not
SyncRecPtr() in
> syncrep.c. Which makes me think that GetOldestWALSendPointer()
> no longer needs to be maintained. So, is it time to remove that unused
> function?
>
Seems sensible cleanup to me.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
there are no objections. I
> think this is justifiable as clean-up for 9.6.
>
Yeh, sort has changed enough now that fixes weren't going to backpatch
cleanly, so its a good time to do cleanup.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
nsidered.
>
I would likely have said this myself but didn't even get that far.
Your contribution was useful and went further than anybody else's review,
so thank you.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Andres[2].
>
> [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5707a8cc.6080...@redhat.com
>
> [2]
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/80856693-5065-4392-8606-cf572a2ff...@anarazel.de
It's a longstanding problem and it would be good if we had an improvement.
I can't commit a patch that h
On 8 April 2016 at 20:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> I will make it a high priority for 9.7, though.
>
That is my plan also. I've already started reviewing the non-planner parts
anyway, specifically patch 0002.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2
Does this concern apply to this patch, or to the general situation for 9.6.
Please suggest what you would like to see.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
on't matter and
that's not a useful position.
2) If you commit what you have, someone else might be able to see a bug you
cannot
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
ForLSN function to allow us to know
for certain that something has been delivered.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 7 April 2016 at 12:23, Simon Riggs wrote:
> For 0002
>
For find_best_foreign_key_quals() how can this ever match 2 FKs with
different keys?
The fkrel references the foreignrel, which has a single PK. How can the FK
have a different number of columns to the PK?
Assuming that is po
ase.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
t need to constrain us.
I suggest we should apply what we have then fix the rest later when we work
out how.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 6 April 2016 at 22:28, David Rowley wrote:
> On 7 April 2016 at 09:25, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 5 April 2016 at 19:33, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Committed 0002+0003 with those changes, some minor cosmetic stuff, and
> >> of course the obl
bout combining aggs in the
git log and this is still showing as UnCommitted in the CF app.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 6 April 2016 at 15:17, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-06 14:30:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 6 April 2016 at 14:15, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Nice summary
> >
> > Failover slots are optional. And they work on master.
> >
>
here.
>
> As posted nearby, there's a hole in that defense; for the messages
> only. Pretty easy to solve though.
>
My instinct was to put in a test for non-ascii text; even if we can't keep
that test, it has highlighted a hole we wouldn't have spotted for a while,
so I'
us from
having something else later, if someone else writes it.
We don't need to add this to core. Each plugin can independently write is
own failover code. Works, but doesn't seem like the right approach for open
source.
=> I think we should add Failover Slots to 9.6.
--
Simon Rigg
nd certainly not clear. We did all agree on the point that
the earlier fix cannot be backpatched, so if it is as grevious a problem as
described many users will not now benefit.
I will revert my earlier patch now.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadr
On 6 April 2016 at 13:27, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-06 13:11:40 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 6 April 2016 at 10:09, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2016-04-06 10:04:42 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > The issue there is that we continue to issue checkpoints
On 6 April 2016 at 10:09, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-06 10:04:42 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 6 April 2016 at 09:45, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > On 2016-04-06 09:18:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > Rather than take that option, I went
On 6 April 2016 at 12:24, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> FWIW, I vote also for reverting this patch. This has been committed
> >> without any real discussions..
> >
> > Michael, its a shame to hear you say
ow we cope without this, so if a problem remains we can fix
by the freeze.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
ncerns about what others might expect
from this feature. Could we add similar wording to the docs?
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 6 April 2016 at 09:45, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-06 09:18:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Rather than take that option, I went to the trouble of writing a patch
> that
> > does the same thing but simpler, less invasive and more maintainable.
> > Primarily
On 5 April 2016 at 01:18, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2016-04-04 08:44:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> That patch does exactly the same thing as the patch you prefer, just
> >> does it differently;
> >
ode where it sits in the normal lock
queue BUT other lock requestors are allowed to queue jump past it. That
should be just a few lines changed in the lock conflict checker and some
sleight of hand in the lock queue code.
That way we avoid the busy-wait loop and multiple DEFERRABLE lock w
However, in most cases, k > N would not make sense and we should issue a
WARNING.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 5 April 2016 at 11:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 5 April 2016 at 08:58, Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >>>> So I am suggesting we put an extra keyword in front of the “k”, to
>
he beginning of SyncRepReleaseWaiters(),
> they don't need to perform any operations that the patch adds
> (e.g., find out which standbys are synchronous).
>
I was thinking about the overhead of scanning through the full list of
WALSenders for each message, when it is a sync standby.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
mentioning that
> > static code analyzers (I'm currently experimenting with Clang and PVS
> > Studio) complain about code like this.
>
> There's different comments in both branches...
Then one or both of the comments is incomplete.
--
Simon Riggsh
On 5 April 2016 at 10:10, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2016-04-04 10:35:34 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On 4 April 2016 at 09:28, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> > Barring any objections, I'll commit this patc
SyncRepGetOldestSyncRecPtr() so that it returns
the k'th oldest pointer of any named standby. Then use that to wake up user
backends. So the change requires only slightly modified logic in a very
isolated part of the code, almost all of which would be code inserts to
cope with the new option. The
On 4 April 2016 at 10:35, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 4 April 2016 at 09:28, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
>> Barring any objections, I'll commit this patch.
>>
>
> That sounds good.
>
> May I have one more day to review this? Actually more like 3-4 hours.
>
W
> Thoughts?
Rewriting something that works fine just before the deadline isn't a good
plan.
"Might be better" isn't enough.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 4 April 2016 at 10:45, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Simon, perhaps you could hold the above question in your mind while
> looking through this?
>
Sure, np.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 S
On 4 April 2016 at 09:28, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Barring any objections, I'll commit this patch.
>
That sounds good.
May I have one more day to review this? Actually more like 3-4 hours.
I have no comments on an initial read, so I'm hopeful of having nothing at
all to say o
On 3 April 2016 at 22:44, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Detailed comments in the planner part of the patch. The discussion around
> this patch isn't reflected enough in the patch.
>
I think we should record that the planner uses the constraint, even if the
constraint is not yet valid, per
Committer.
I marked myself as Committer to show there was interest in this. If anyone
else would like to commit it, I am happy for you to do so.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
ars, so
asking a long term contributor to avoid sending multiple minor patches is
in line with that.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 3 April 2016 at 22:09, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 04/03/2016 10:06 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> On 14 March 2016 at 19:42, Tomas Vondra > <mailto:tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>
>>
>>
>> I'd like to split this int
On 3 April 2016 at 21:32, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 14 March 2016 at 17:46, David Steele wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/16 12:40 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> This has the merit to be clear, thanks for the input. Whatever the
>>> approach taken at the end we have two ca
d in the
> future if/when the use of flags spreads.
>
XLogInsertExtended() is the one I would commit, if.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
2) Tomas + David ?
I'd be inclined to see a little more explanatory docs on this.
Have we done any tests on planning overhead for cases where multiple FKs
exist?
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
available in core until late 2017 now.
Given that, please save up all your desired changes to pgbench and submit
in one go nearer the next CF. Thanks.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
rather than just when somebody feels like it (which is
> probably almost never, if at all).
>
> Would somebody like to volunteer?
>
That was under my maintenance, so I'm happy to do that, as long as its
after freeze.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadran
and is clearly not in final form
> as it exists today.
>
> Therefore, I have marked this Returned with Feedback. I look forward
> to returning to this topic for 9.7, and I'm willing to step up to the
> plate and review this more aggressively at that time, with an eye
> toward com
On 21 March 2016 at 14:35, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 01:33:28PM +, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Support parallel aggregation.
>
> ...and there was much rejoicing!
>
+1
Well done all.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http:
, the members of the RMT are Álvaro Herrera,
Robert Haas, and Noah Misch.
Please give them your full support in making this another high quality
release for PostgreSQL.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support,
On 10 March 2016 at 11:38, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 10 March 2016 at 09:22, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Vladimir Borodin
>> wrote:
>> > Let’s do immediately after you will send a new version of your patch? Or
>> > even
especially for !postgresql downstreams I strongly
> suspect people will want to use it for "real" work rather than have to
> modify each client driver to support replication protocol extensions.
>
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 10 March 2016 at 20:36, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Simon Riggs
> wrote:
> > On 3 February 2016 at 23:12, Thomas Munro >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> It quacks suspiciously like a bug.
> >
> >
> > Agreed
27;d like to
see this in there.
Let's set good standards for responsiveness and correctness.
I'd also like to see some theory in comments and an explanation of why
we're doing this (code).
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
gt; disagree.
Not sure what y'all are discussing, but I should add that I would have
committed this based solely upon Vik's +1.
My objection was made, then overruled; that works because the objection
wasn't "it won't work", only a preference so I'm happy.
But I
ote for this
> >> functionality upthread. (Apologies if I've missed one.) In the
> >> absence of a few of those, I recommend we reject this.
> >
> > +1
>
> I'm meh for this patch.
>
"meh" == +1
I thought it meant -1
--
Simon Riggs
pellcheck.
If someone takes this on soon it can go into 9.6, otherwise I vote to
reject this early to avoid wasting review time.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 25 February 2016 at 07:42, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:13:01 +0000, Simon Riggs
> wrote in <
> canp8+jlbge_ybxulgzxvce44oob8v0t93e5_inhvbde2pxk...@mail.gmail.com>
> > On 17 February
and
tests. And as Robert says, comments that show you've done the analysis to
show you know the patch is safe.
Some parts of this patch could be resubmitted in a later CF with some time
and attention spent on it, but it isn't in a good enough state for last CF.
--
Simon Riggs
e easily.
toast_recheck.v1.patch
Adds recheck code for toast access. I'm not certain this is necessary, but
here it is. No problems found with it.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA
On 10 March 2016 at 06:27, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:29 AM, David Steele wrote:
> > On 1/8/16 9:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 8 January 2016 at 13:36, Alvaro Herrera
> >>
On 3 March 2016 at 10:11, Tobias Florek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Reverted patch in HEAD and 9.5
>
> Is there an ETA?
>
I just committed the fix to the repo.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Developmen
On 2 March 2016 at 10:57, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 1 March 2016 at 20:03, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>> In any event, I am now of the opinion that this patch needs to be reverted
>> outright and returned to the authors for redesign. There are too many
>> things wrong with
ikes. The read-only test is an 0.5% hit which isn't great, but the
> read-write test is about 5% which I think is clearly not OK. What's
> your plan for doing something about that?
>
Whether artefact of test, or real problem, clearly something fixable.
ISTM that w
#x27;t want to add the last CF workload
with this.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
ook. Who's
> > touched btree key comparison logic lately?
> >
> > (Problem is reproducible in 9.5 and HEAD, but not 9.4.)
>
>
> Bisects down to:
>
> 606c0123d627b37d5ac3f7c2c97cd715dde7842f is the first bad commit
> commit 606c0123d627b37d5ac3f7c2c97cd715dde7842f
&g
r of patches that still require work going in at the last minute. Not
with relish, just so that understanding isn't limited to the usual suspects
of feature-crime.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
so if the impact is caused by one minor table that nobody much cares
about.
What I see as more practical is reducing the scope of "safe transactions"
down to "safe scopes", where particular tables or sets of tables are known
safe at particular times, so we know more about which
On 27 February 2016 at 07:52, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> On 02/27/2016 04:16 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On 27 February 2016 at 00:33, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> On 27 February 2016 at 00:29, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-02-26 18:05:55 +0300, Konstantin Kn
intermediate states becoming visible. So that would be the
preferred mechanism.
Collecting a list of transactions that must be applied before the current
one could be accumulated during SSI processing and added to the commit
record. But reordering the transaction apply is something we'd need to get
some
On 27 February 2016 at 01:23, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-02-27 01:16:34 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > If the above is true, then the proposed fix wouldn't work either.
> >
> > No point in sending a cache invalidation message on the standby if you
> > hav
On 27 February 2016 at 00:33, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 27 February 2016 at 00:29, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> On 2016-02-26 18:05:55 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>> > The reason of the problem is that invalidation messages are not
>> delivered to
>> >
not assigned XID,
> no
> > transaction record is created in WAL and send to replicas. As a result,
> > replica doesn't receive this invalidation messages.
>
> Ugh, that's a fairly ugly bug.
Looking now.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> commit order to some other order (based on, for example, read-write
> dependencies) is not complete. If it does support that, it gives
> us a way forward for presenting consistent data on logical
> replicas.
>
You appear to be saying that SSI allows transactions to commit in a
non-seri
ven FDW table, but that then leaks into the
> user-application driving these queries.
>
Look at TABLESAMPLE, which does mostly what you're asking.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 25 February 2016 at 18:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Simon Riggs
> wrote:
>
>> On 24 February 2016 at 23:26, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From past few weeks, we were facing some performance degradation in the
>>>
twice or thrice, it
> is easily visible.
>
Not seen that on the original patch I posted. 6150a1b0 contains multiple
changes to the lwlock structures, one written by me, others by Andres.
Perhaps we should revert that patch and re-apply the various changes in
multiple commits so we can see
is the
timescale, but my hope is that we recognize that multiple use cases can be
supported rather than a single fixed architecture. It seems likely to me
that the PostgreSQL project will do what it does best - take multiple
comments and merge those into a combined system that is better tha
comments on the patch itself, which seems to do the job, so apologies to
give this opinion on your work, I do hope it doesn't put you off further
contributions.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
up again, which could happen now we
have user-defined timeouts.
What surprises me is that I can't see this patch ever worked as submitted,
when run on an assert-enabled build.
If you want this backpatched, please submit versions that apply cleanly and
test them. I'm less inclined to do tha
On 14 February 2016 at 00:03, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I've attached a new version, incorporating comments from Tom and Michael.
>
Applied, thanks.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Rem
y. Or do you have some evidence that it does?
I think we should fix it, but not backpatch.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
How about looking into pg_control? ControlFileData->state ought to have
> the correct information.
>
+1
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
501 - 600 of 8500 matches
Mail list logo
