Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:11 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 8/31/17 4:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> Thanks for the new version. This looks fine to me. >> >> Committed to REL9_6_STABLE with

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On 8/31/17 4:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Thanks for the new version. This looks fine to me. > > Committed to REL9_6_STABLE with minor wordsmithing. The edits look good to me. Thanks, Robert! -- -David

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Thanks for the new version. This looks fine to me. Committed to REL9_6_STABLE with minor wordsmithing. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:02 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 8/29/17 9:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele wrote: >>> >>> Attached is the 9.6 patch. It required a bit more work in func.sgml >>> than I was

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

Hi Michael, Thanks for reviewing! On 8/29/17 9:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele wrote: >> >> Attached is the 9.6 patch. It required a bit more work in func.sgml >> than I was expecting so have a close look at that. The rest

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele wrote: > Hi Robert, > > On 8/25/17 4:03 PM, David Steele wrote: >> On 8/25/17 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele >>> wrote: No problem. I'll base it on your

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

Hi Robert, On 8/25/17 4:03 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 8/25/17 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele >> wrote: >>> No problem.  I'll base it on your commit to capture any changes you >>> made. >> >> Thanks, but you incorporated

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On 8/25/17 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele wrote: No problem. I'll base it on your commit to capture any changes you made. Thanks, but you incorporated everything I wanted in response to my first review -- so I didn't tweak it

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele wrote: > No problem. I'll base it on your commit to capture any changes you made. Thanks, but you incorporated everything I wanted in response to my first review -- so I didn't tweak it any further. -- Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On 8/25/17 3:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:10 PM, David Steele wrote: >> >> Robert said he would commit this so I expect he'll do that if he doesn't >> have any objections to the changes. >> >> Robert, if you would prefer me to submit this to the CF

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:10 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 8/24/17 7:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> True as well. The patch looks good to me. If a committer does not show >> up soon, it may be better to register that in the CF and wait. I am >> not sure that adding an

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On 8/24/17 7:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > True as well. The patch looks good to me. If a committer does not show > up soon, it may be better to register that in the CF and wait. I am > not sure that adding an open item is suited, as docs have the same > problem on 9.6. Robert said he would

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:49 PM, David Steele wrote: > Thanks for reviewing! Sorry for the late response, those eclipses don't > just chase themselves... That's quite something to see. > On 8/20/17 10:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:35 AM, David

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

Hi Michael, Thanks for reviewing! Sorry for the late response, those eclipses don't just chase themselves... On 8/20/17 10:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:35 AM, David Steele wrote: > > + Prior to PostgreSQL 9.6, this > Markup ? Fixed. > +

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:35 AM, David Steele wrote: > This patch should be sufficient for 10/11 but will need some minor > changes for 9.6 to remove the reference to wait_for_archive. Note that > this patch ignores Michael's patch [2] to create WAL history files on a >

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On 8/18/17 3:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > If you update the patch I'll apply it to 11 and 10. Attached is the updated patch. I didn't like the vague "there can be some issues on the server if it crashes during the backup" so I added a new paragraph at the appropriate step to give a more

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:58 PM, David Steele wrote: > OK, but I was trying to make it very clear that this backup method only > works on a primary. If you think the text is in the first paragraph is > enough then I'm willing to go with that, though. Yeah, I think the text

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

Robert, Thanks for reviewing! On 8/18/17 2:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > - the next WAL segment. The reason for the switch is to arrange for > + the next WAL segment when run on a primary. On a standby you can call > + pg_switch_wal on the primary to perform a manual > + switch.

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

- the next WAL segment. The reason for the switch is to arrange for + the next WAL segment when run on a primary. On a standby you can call + pg_switch_wal on the primary to perform a manual + switch. + The reason for the switch is to arrange for Tacking on "when run on a