Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote: On Nov9, 2011, at 23:53 , Daniel Farina wrote: I think a novice user would be scared half to death: I know I was the first time. That's not a great impression for the project to leave for what is not, at its root, a vast defect, and the fact it's occurring for people when they use rsync rather than my very sensitive backup routines is indication that it's not very corner-ey. Just to emphasize the non-conerish-ness of this problem, it should be mentioned that the HS issue was observed even with backups taken with pg_basebackup, if memory serves correctly. Yes I personally can reliably reproduce both the clog+subtrans problems using pg_basebackup, and can confirm that the oldestActiveXid_fixed.v2.patch does resolve both issues.
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
2011-11-10 03:35 keltezéssel, Joshua D. Drake írta: On 11/09/2011 06:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote: 2011/11/9 Devrim GÜNDÜZdev...@gunduz.org: On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: The point is that all the packaging will be done *before* people leave to go eat Turkey. Eating me? :-) No, just your country. I hear it is a little dry. Especially on the throat, as the Koran forbids wine. :-) But that didn't prohibit turks enjoy wine in Hungary from 1526 to 1686, Hungary was occupied during that time by the turks. It's documented by some historian that their belief was that Allah listened in their heads and in their smartness they figured out that they just had to yell loudly. This way Allah scared off and ran into their legs and he didn't notice them drinking wine. :-D I didn't mean to offend you, Devrim ;-) -- -- Zoltán Böszörményi Cybertec Schönig Schönig GmbH Gröhrmühlgasse 26 A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de http://www.postgresql.at/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On 9 Nov 2011, at 05:06, Magnus Hagander wrote: I definitely think they are important enough to trigger a release. But as you say, I think we need confirmation that they actually fix the problem... Would you consider it a blocker for a rollout on production system ?
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
I definitely think they are important enough to trigger a release. But as you say, I think we need confirmation that they actually fix the problem... Just last night Heroku was offering to help us test replication stuff. I'll take them up on it. Link for the patch and issue in question? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On 11/09/2011 01:12 PM, Greg Jaskiewicz wrote: Would you consider it a blocker for a rollout on production system ? I wouldn't. Good process for checking your backups should find this problem if it pops up, and it's not that easy to run into. That's why I was saying there are workarounds here, they're just not nice to put people through. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant USg...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: I definitely think they are important enough to trigger a release. But as you say, I think we need confirmation that they actually fix the problem... I have confirmed that the clog/subtrans fixes allow us to start up while in hot standby on otherwise problematic base backups. Also, this is something of a big deal to us; otherwise it happens frequently enough that I cannot claim that I can use hot standby in an unattended, automated way. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: I definitely think they are important enough to trigger a release. But as you say, I think we need confirmation that they actually fix the problem... I have confirmed that the clog/subtrans fixes allow us to start up while in hot standby on otherwise problematic base backups. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On 11/09/2011 03:58 PM, Daniel Farina wrote: On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote: I definitely think they are important enough to trigger a release. But as you say, I think we need confirmation that they actually fix the problem... I have confirmed that the clog/subtrans fixes allow us to start up while in hot standby on otherwise problematic base backups. I think Daniel has run into this problem more than anyone else, so hearing it's fixed for him makes me feel a lot better that it's been resolved. I'd characterize this problem as a medium grade data corruption issue. It's not security issue bad that it needs to be released tomorrow, but a backbranch release of at least 9.0/9.1 that includes it would be a big relief for people nervous about this. I'd hate to see that slip forward to where it gets sucked into the holiday vortex. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant USg...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I think Daniel has run into this problem more than anyone else, so hearing it's fixed for him makes me feel a lot better that it's been resolved. I'd characterize this problem as a medium grade data corruption issue. It's not security issue bad that it needs to be released tomorrow, but a backbranch release of at least 9.0/9.1 that includes it would be a big relief for people nervous about this. I'd hate to see that slip forward to where it gets sucked into the holiday vortex. The first time I encountered this I had to reason very carefully for a while that I just did not suffer some sort of corruption problem or recovery bug. After I figured out that normal (non-hot-standby) recovery worked and what the general mechanism was only then I was sort-of-assuaged into letting it slide as a workaround. I think a novice user would be scared half to death: I know I was the first time. That's not a great impression for the project to leave for what is not, at its root, a vast defect, and the fact it's occurring for people when they use rsync rather than my very sensitive backup routines is indication that it's not very corner-ey. So that's my take on it. It's not a tomorrow severity release (we've been living with the workaround for months, even though it is blocking some things), but I would really appreciate an expedited release to enable unattended hot-standby operation and to avoid scaring those who encounter this. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
So that's my take on it. It's not a tomorrow severity release (we've been living with the workaround for months, even though it is blocking some things), but I would really appreciate an expedited release to enable unattended hot-standby operation and to avoid scaring those who encounter this. The earliest we could release an update would the November 21st, the monday before American Thanksgiving. That seems doable to me ... should we ping the packagers about it? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On Nov9, 2011, at 23:53 , Daniel Farina wrote: I think a novice user would be scared half to death: I know I was the first time. That's not a great impression for the project to leave for what is not, at its root, a vast defect, and the fact it's occurring for people when they use rsync rather than my very sensitive backup routines is indication that it's not very corner-ey. Just to emphasize the non-conerish-ness of this problem, it should be mentioned that the HS issue was observed even with backups taken with pg_basebackup, if memory serves correctly. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On 11/09/2011 03:56 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: So that's my take on it. It's not a tomorrow severity release (we've been living with the workaround for months, even though it is blocking some things), but I would really appreciate an expedited release to enable unattended hot-standby operation and to avoid scaring those who encounter this. The earliest we could release an update would the November 21st, the monday before American Thanksgiving. That seems doable to me ... should we ping the packagers about it? Ehhh That week is kind of moot for most of the United States. Shouldn't it be like Tuesday the week after? JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ @cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
Ehhh That week is kind of moot for most of the United States. Shouldn't it be like Tuesday the week after? Given that we start packaging on Thursday, that would mean waiting an additional 2 weeks. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Ehhh That week is kind of moot for most of the United States. Shouldn't it be like Tuesday the week after? Given that we start packaging on Thursday, that would mean waiting an additional 2 weeks. Yeah, I don't see what's wrong with the 21st. People may not install the update the minute it comes out, but that's not necessarily a big deal, especially since it's not a security update. The point is that all the packaging will be done *before* people leave to go eat Turkey. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: The point is that all the packaging will be done *before* people leave to go eat Turkey. Eating me? -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
2011/11/9 Devrim GÜNDÜZ dev...@gunduz.org: On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: The point is that all the packaging will be done *before* people leave to go eat Turkey. Eating me? :-) No, just your country. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On 11/09/2011 06:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote: 2011/11/9 Devrim GÜNDÜZdev...@gunduz.org: On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: The point is that all the packaging will be done *before* people leave to go eat Turkey. Eating me? :-) No, just your country. I hear it is a little dry. -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ @cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Given that we start packaging on Thursday, that would mean waiting an additional 2 weeks. Yeah, I don't see what's wrong with the 21st. One advantage of waiting two more weeks is that we could declare it to be the final 8.2.x release, because we'd be into December. Also, I concur with JD that releasing Thanksgiving week is a good way to ensure that nobody in the US notices. First week of December would be a lot better (and is really about the only slot that's left before the new year). regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
Given the amount of fixes that went into the branch, and importance of them - when can we expect 9.1.2 to be released officially ? 9.1.1 was stamped on 22nd of September. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
Greg Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl writes: Given the amount of fixes that went into the branch, and importance of them - when can we expect 9.1.2 to be released officially ? 9.1.1 was stamped on 22nd of September. That's barely more than six weeks ago. Usually, in the absence of any seriously nasty bugs, Postgres update releases are three months or more apart; more often than that puts undue load on our downstream packagers. I don't recall that we've fixed anything since September that seemed to warrant an immediate release. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On 11/08/2011 07:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I don't recall that we've fixed anything since September that seemed to warrant an immediate release. The backup+pg_clog failure issues fixed last week have been a nasty problem hitting people for a while. Backup corruption is obviously serious. Only reason I think it wasn't a higher priority issue is that it didn't happen every time, and the people impacted were eventually able to work around it. Concern about that problem is why I popped off a message earlier today, about whether the fixes committed have been confirmed outside of Simon's own testing. I was curious how 9.0 fared last year for comparison, here's that data: Version Date Days Weeks 9.0.009/20/10 9.0.110/04/10142.0 9.0.212/16/107310.4 9.0.301/31/11466.6 9.0.404/18/117711.0 9.0.509/26/11161 23.0 So the average for the first three point releases was around 6 weeks apart. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant USg...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes: I was curious how 9.0 fared last year for comparison, here's that data: Version Date Days Weeks 9.0.009/20/10 9.0.110/04/10142.0 9.0.212/16/107310.4 9.0.301/31/11466.6 9.0.404/18/117711.0 9.0.509/26/11161 23.0 So the average for the first three point releases was around 6 weeks apart. The 9.0.1 and 9.0.3 releases were both forced by security issues, so I think that's an unusually low average. Having said that, if enough people think that those backup issues are critical-data-loss problems, I won't stand in the way of making a release now. But like you, I'm not exactly convinced we're done with those issues. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 9.1.2 ?
On Nov 9, 2011 3:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes: I was curious how 9.0 fared last year for comparison, here's that data: Version Date Days Weeks 9.0.009/20/10 9.0.110/04/10142.0 9.0.212/16/107310.4 9.0.301/31/11466.6 9.0.404/18/117711.0 9.0.509/26/11161 23.0 So the average for the first three point releases was around 6 weeks apart. The 9.0.1 and 9.0.3 releases were both forced by security issues, so I think that's an unusually low average. Having said that, if enough people think that those backup issues are critical-data-loss problems, I won't stand in the way of making a release now. But like you, I'm not exactly convinced we're done with those issues. I definitely think they are important enough to trigger a release. But as you say, I think we need confirmation that they actually fix the problem... /Magnus
