On 01-06-2014 02:57, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-06-01 00:50:58 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 5/31/14, 9:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-21 15:14:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 2/17/14, 7:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
But do you really want to keep that snapshot around long enough to
copy
On 6/1/14, 10:49 AM, Euler Taveira wrote:
On 01-06-2014 02:57, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-06-01 00:50:58 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 5/31/14, 9:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-21 15:14:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 2/17/14, 7:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
But do you really want to keep
On 2014-02-21 15:14:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 2/17/14, 7:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
But do you really want to keep that snapshot around long enough to
copy the entire database? I bet you don't: if the database is big,
holding back xmin for long enough to copy the whole thing isn't likely
On 5/31/14, 9:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-21 15:14:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 2/17/14, 7:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
But do you really want to keep that snapshot around long enough to
copy the entire database? I bet you don't: if the database is big,
holding back xmin for long
On 2014-06-01 00:50:58 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 5/31/14, 9:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-21 15:14:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 2/17/14, 7:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
But do you really want to keep that snapshot around long enough to
copy the entire database? I bet you don't: if the
On 2014-02-24 12:50:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-15 17:29:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
+ /*
+* XXX: It's
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-24 12:50:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-02-15 17:29:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:55 AM,
On 2014-02-15 17:29:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
+ /*
+* XXX: It's impolite to ignore our argument and keep decoding until
the
+* current position.
+*/
Eh, what?
So, the
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-15 17:29:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
+ /*
+* XXX: It's impolite to ignore our argument and keep decoding until
Hi,
On 2014-02-19 13:01:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I think it should be fairly easy to relax the restriction to creating a
slot, but not getting data from it. Do you think that would that be
sufficient?
That would be a big improvement, for sure, and might be entirely sufficient.
On 2014-02-19 13:31:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
TBH, as compared to what you've got now, I think this mostly boils
down to a question of quoting and escaping. I'm not really concerned
with whether we ship something that's perfectly efficient, or that has
filtering capabilities, or that has a
On 2014-02-19 13:07:11 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
2. I think the snapshot-export code is fundamentally misdesigned. As
I said before, the idea that we're going to export one single snapshot
at one particular point
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I can sympathize with the too much during init argument, but I don't
see how moving stuff to the first call would get rid of the problems. If
we fail later it's going to be just as confusing.
No, it isn't. If you
On 2014-02-21 08:16:59 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I can sympathize with the too much during init argument, but I don't
see how moving stuff to the first call would get rid of the problems. If
we fail later it's
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-21 08:16:59 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I can sympathize with the too much during init argument, but I don't
see how moving
On 2014-02-21 08:51:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-21 08:16:59 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I can sympathize with the too much
On 2/17/14, 7:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
But do you really want to keep that snapshot around long enough to
copy the entire database? I bet you don't: if the database is big,
holding back xmin for long enough to copy the whole thing isn't likely
to be fun.
I can confirm that this would be epic
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-15 17:29:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
[ new patches ]
0001 already needs minor
Hm?
If there are conflicts, I'll push/send
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-15 17:29:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
[ new patches ]
0001 already needs minor
+ * copied stuff from tuptoaster.c. Perhaps
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
2. I think the snapshot-export code is fundamentally misdesigned. As
I said before, the idea that we're going to export one single snapshot
at one particular point in time strikes me as extremely short-sighted.
I
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-17 21:35:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
What
I don't understand is why we're not taking the test_decoding module,
polishing it up a little to produce some nice, easily
machine-parseable output, calling it
On 18-02-2014 06:33, Andres Freund wrote:
I really hope there will be nicer ones by the time 9.4 is
released. Euler did send in a json plugin
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/52A5BFAE.1040209%2540timbira.com.br
, but there hasn't too much feedback yet. It's hard to start discussing
Hi Robert,
On 2014-02-17 20:31:34 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
1. How safe is it to try to do decoding inside of a regular backend?
What we're doing here is entering a special mode where we forbid the
use of regular snapshots in favor of requiring the use of decoding
snapshots, and forbid access
On 2014-02-17 21:10:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
1. How safe is it to try to do decoding inside of a regular backend?
What we're doing here is entering a special mode where we forbid the
use of regular snapshots in favor of requiring the use of
On 2014-02-17 18:49:59 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
What I actually suspect is going to happen if we ship this as-is is
that people are going to start building logical replication solutions
on top of the
On 2014-02-17 21:35:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
What
I don't understand is why we're not taking the test_decoding module,
polishing it up a little to produce some nice, easily
machine-parseable output, calling it basic_decoding, and shipping
that. Then people who want something else can
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
[ patches ]
Having now had a little bit of opportunity to reflect on the State Of
This Patch, I'd like to step back from the minutia upon which I've
been commenting in my previous emails and articulate three high-level
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Having now had a little bit of opportunity to reflect on the State Of
This Patch, I'd like to step back from the minutia upon which I've
been commenting in my previous emails and articulate three high-level
concerns about this patch. In so doing, I
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
3. As this feature is proposed, the only plugin we'll ship with 9.4 is
a test_decoding plugin which, as its own documentation says, doesn't
do anything especially useful. What exactly do we gain by forcing
users who want to
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
What I actually suspect is going to happen if we ship this as-is is
that people are going to start building logical replication solutions
on top of the test_decoding module even though it explicitly says that
it's just
On 2014-02-15 17:29:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
[ new patches ]
0001 already needs minor
+ * copied stuff from tuptoaster.c. Perhaps there should be toast_internal.h?
Yes, please. If you can submit a
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
[ new patches ]
0001 already needs minor
+ * copied stuff from tuptoaster.c. Perhaps there should be toast_internal.h?
Yes, please. If you can submit a separate patch creating this file
and relocating this stuff
On 2014-02-15 17:29:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
[ new patches ]
0001 already needs minor
Hm?
If there are conflicts, I'll push/send a rebased tomorrow or monday.
+* the transaction's invalidations. This
33 matches
Mail list logo
