Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Thank you having a look on this. > > # I removed -bugs in CC:. > > At Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:40:00 +1100, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1...@gmail.com> > wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Hello, > > At Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:06:00 +1100, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1...@gmail.com> > wrote in <CAEyp7J-4MmVwGoZSwvaSULZC80JDD_tL-9KsNiqF17+bNqiSBg@mail. > gmail.com>

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Hello, > > At Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:59:14 +1100, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1...@gmail.com> > wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > At Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:12:56 +1100, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1...@gmail.com> > wrote in <CAEyp7J9ZuuGc_Ndgw-rQF5oWUPH+p4=p7XE-B5cC3QRr6SUT7w@mail. > gmail.com> > > On Thu,

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.c

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

Regards, Venkata B N Database Consultant On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > This conflicts with 6912acc (replication lag tracker) so just > rebased on a6f22e8. > I tried applying this patch to latest master, it is not getting applied

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

Hi David, On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 4:21 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 3/21/17 8:45 PM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:46 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net >> >> Unfortunately, I don't think the first patch (rec

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:46 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > Hi Venkata, > > On 2/28/17 11:59 PM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1...@gmail.com >> <mailto:nag1...@gmail.com>> wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Hello. I added pgsql-hackers. > > This occurs also on git master and back to 9.4. > > At Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:47:06 -0600, Jonathon Nelson > wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:49 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > >> On 1/27/17 3:19 AM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: >> >> > I will be

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

Hi David, On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:49 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 1/27/17 3:19 AM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > > > I will be adding the tests in > > src/test/recovery/t/003_recovery_targets.pl > > <http://003_recovery_targets.pl&g

Re: [HACKERS] Range Partitioning behaviour - query

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:38 PM, David G. Johnston < david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Amit Langote < > langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > >> On 2017/02/24 8:38, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: >> > On Thu, Feb 23,

Re: [HACKERS] Range Partitioning behaviour - query

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp > wrote: > On 2017/02/24 10:38, David G. Johnston wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Amit Langote < > langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp > >> wrote: > > > >> On 2017/02/2

Re: [HACKERS] Range Partitioning behaviour - query

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp > wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017/02/23 11:55, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > > Hi Hackers, > > > > I have noticed the following behaviour in range partitioning which i felt > > i

[HACKERS] Range Partitioning behaviour - query

Hi Hackers, I have noticed the following behaviour in range partitioning which i felt is not quite correct (i missed reporting this) - I have tested by creating a date ranged partition. I created the following table. db03=# CREATE TABLE orders ( o_orderkey INTEGER, o_custkey

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:49 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > > On 1/27/17 3:19 AM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > >> I have split the patch into two different &g

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:49 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 1/27/17 3:19 AM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > > > I will be adding the tests in > > src/test/recovery/t/003_recovery_targets.pl > > <http://003_recovery_targets.pl>. My tests

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

Hi David, On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:22 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > Hi Venkata, > > On 11/8/16 5:47 PM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > > Attached is the 2nd version of the patch with some enhancements. > > Here's my review of the patch. > Tha

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > Attached are two new version of the patch: one keeps aliases, one don't. > Both the patches (with and without aliases) are not getting applied to the latest master. Below is the error - Perhaps you used the wrong

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp > wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2016/12/11 10:02, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On Fri, De

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

Regards, Venkata B N Database Consultant On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am testing the partitioning fe

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

Hi, I am testing the partitioning feature from the latest master and got the following error while loading the data - db01=# create table orders_y1993 PARTITION OF orders FOR VALUES FROM ('1993-01-01') TO ('1993-12-31'); CREATE TABLE db01=# copy orders from '/data/orders-1993.csv' delimiter

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

Attached is the 2nd version of the patch with some enhancements. *Scenario 2 :* > > Generates Errors, Hints when the specified recovery target is prior to the > backup's current position (xid, time and lsn). This behaviour is integrated > with the parameters

Re: [HACKERS] Contents of "backup_label" and "*.backup" in pg_wal location

> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Sure. I will look at the possibility of using XLOG_BACKUP_END in my > patch. > > I am looking at the possibility of keeping the backup_label at source > until > > pg_stop_bac

Re: [HACKERS] Contents of "backup_label" and "*.backup" in pg_wal location

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I see the following contents in the file > > "00010044.0060.backup&q

[HACKERS] Contents of "backup_label" and "*.backup" in pg_wal location

Hello Hackers, I have a question regarding the contents being written to the backup_label file and the .backup file in the pg_wal location generated when the online backup is done. backup_label file contents are as follows, which do not contain backup stop position (timestamp and STOP WAL

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

comments are inline On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> > wrote: > >> * Venkata B Nagothi (nag1...@gmail.com) wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog error on the master

On Sunday, 23 October 2016, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I just did did a "git pull" to test one of my patches and i get the > > following erro

[HACKERS] pg_xlog error on the master

I just did did a "git pull" to test one of my patches and i get the following error : 2016-10-23 18:51:47.679 AEDT [31930] FATAL: could not open archive status directory "pg_xlog/archive_status": No such file or directory 2016-10-23 18:51:47.679 AEDT [31841] LOG: archiver process (PID 31930)

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Venkata B Nagothi (nag1...@gmail.com) wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> > wrote: > > > * Venkata B Nagothi (nag1...@gmail.c

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Venkata B Nagothi (nag1...@gmail.com) wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> > wrote: > > > I'm not a fan of the "recovery_target" op

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Venkata B Nagothi (nag1...@gmail.com) wrote: > > *Query 1* > > > > What about the existing parameter called "recovery_target" which accepts > > only one value "immediate

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Frost > wrote: > > I could see supporting an additional "pause" option that means "pause at > > the end of WAL if you don't reach the recovery

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Venkata B Nagothi (nag1...@gmail.com) wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> > wrote: > > > * Venkata B Nagothi (nag1...@gmail.com) wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Frost > wrote: > > I could see supporting an additional "pause" option that means "pause at > > the end of WAL if you don't reach the recovery

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Venkata, > > * Venkata B Nagothi (nag1...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Agreed. Additional option like "pause" would. As long as there is an > option > > to ensure following happe

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Greetings, > > * Venkata B Nagothi (nag1...@gmail.com) wrote: > > The above said parameters can be configured to pause, shutdown or prevent > > promotion only after reaching the recovery targ

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:50 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 8/15/16 2:33 AM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > > > During the recovery process, It would be nice if PostgreSQL generates an > > error by aborting the recovery process (instead of sta

[HACKERS] patch proposal

Hi, During the recovery process, It would be nice if PostgreSQL generates an error by aborting the recovery process (instead of starting-up the cluster) if the intended recovery target point is not reached and give an option to DBA to resume the recovery process from where it exactly stopped.