On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
>> Well, I sort of assumed the design was OK, too, but the more we talk
>> about this WAL-logging stuff, the less convinced I am that I really
>> understand the problem. :-(
>
>
> I see. In fact, I think nobody thought about restart
> Well, I sort of assumed the design was OK, too, but the more we talk
> about this WAL-logging stuff, the less convinced I am that I really
> understand the problem. :-(
I see. In fact, I think nobody thought about restart points...
To sum up:
1) everything seems ok when in the wal_level =
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
>> I think
>> we need a detailed design document for how this is all going to work.
>> We need to not only handle the master properly but also handle the
>> slave properly. Consider, for example, the case where the slave
>> begins to
> I think
> we need a detailed design document for how this is all going to work.
> We need to not only handle the master properly but also handle the
> slave properly. Consider, for example, the case where the slave
> begins to replay the transaction, reaches a restartpoint after
> replaying
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> I don't think it is *necessary*. If we're replaying WAL on a master, we'll
> also
> be resetting unlogged relations after recovery; what we write or do not write
> to
> them in the mean time has no functional impact. Seemed like a sensible
>
> Why is it necessary to replay the operation only on the slave? Can we
> just use XLOG_HEAP_NEWPAGE?
Uh, I don't know why but I thought I shouldn't log a page on the master,
since all the pages are already there and fsync-ed. But if it makes no harm,
I can easily use XLOG_HEAP_NEWPAGE (of co
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 09:33:09PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> So, it's ok to have a log item that is replayed only if
> >>
> >> WalRcvInProgress()
> >>
> >> is true?
> >
> > No, that checks for WAL streaming in particular. ?A log-shipping st
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> So, it's ok to have a log item that is replayed only if
>>
>> WalRcvInProgress()
>>
>> is true?
>
> No, that checks for WAL streaming in particular. A log-shipping standby needs
> the same treatment.
>
>> Is it a correct approach? I couldn't f
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:49:13AM +0100, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
> > From: Noah Misch
> > > - the patch is missing the "send all table pages to the
> > > standby" part; is there some code I can use as base?
> >
> > Nothing comes to mind as especially similar.
> >
> > > I guess I have to
> From: Noah Misch
> > - the patch is missing the "send all table pages to the
> > standby" part; is there some code I can use as base?
>
> Nothing comes to mind as especially similar.
>
> > I guess I have to generate some special log type that
> > is only "played" by standby servers.
>
> W
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 09:37:20AM +0100, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
> I'll try to sum up what I understood:
>
> 1) the standby keeps the lock, so no problem with
> stray files coming from the unlogged->logged log
> reply, as the table can't be read during the operation
>
> 2) calling ResetUnlog
> - the patch is missing the "send all table pages to the
> standby" part; is there some code I can use as base?
> I guess I have to generate some special log type that
> is only "played" by standby servers.
Maybe I could use log_newpage, but instead of
XLOG_HEAP_NEWPAGE I could use something
I'll try to sum up what I understood:
1) the standby keeps the lock, so no problem with
stray files coming from the unlogged->logged log
reply, as the table can't be read during the operation
2) calling ResetUnloggedRelations before
ProcArrayApplyRecoveryInfo would remove the problem
of the stra
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 03:53:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:42:03AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> > It would solve the problem, but it would mean resettin
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:42:03AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > It would solve the problem, but it would mean resetting unlogged relations
>> > on
>> > the standby at every shutdown chec
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:42:03AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > It would solve the problem, but it would mean resetting unlogged relations
> > on
> > the standby at every shutdown checkpoint. ?That's probably not a performance
> > problem, bu
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> It would solve the problem, but it would mean resetting unlogged relations on
> the standby at every shutdown checkpoint. That's probably not a performance
> problem, but it is a hack.
I haven't thought about this too deeply, but I'm not sure
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 01:52:46PM +0100, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
> > I'd guess some WAL record arising from the post-crash master restart makes
> the
> > standby do so. When a crash isn't involved, the commit or abort record is
> >that
> > signal. You could test and find out how it happ
> I'd guess some WAL record arising from the post-crash master restart makes
the
> standby do so. When a crash isn't involved, the commit or abort record is
>that
> signal. You could test and find out how it happens after a master crash
> with
>a
> procedure like this:
>
> 1. Start a mas
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 09:23:53AM +0100, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 04:02:59PM +0100, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
> > > > By the time the startup process
> > > > releases the AccessExclusiveLock acquired by the proposed
> > > > UNLOGGED -> normal conversion proces
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 04:02:59PM +0100, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
> > > By the time the startup process
> > > releases the AccessExclusiveLock acquired by the proposed
> > > UNLOGGED -> normal conversion process, that relfilenode
> > > needs to be either fully copied or unlinked all ov
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 04:02:59PM +0100, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
> > By the time the startup process
> > releases the AccessExclusiveLock acquired by the proposed
> > UNLOGGED -> normal conversion process, that relfilenode
> > needs to be either fully copied or unlinked all over again.
> >
> By the time the startup process
> releases the AccessExclusiveLock acquired by the proposed
> UNLOGGED -> normal conversion process, that relfilenode
> needs to be either fully copied or unlinked all over again.
> (Alternately, find some other way to make sure queries don't
> read the half-c
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
>> I don't think making xinfo shorter will save anything, because
>> whatever follows it is going to be a 4-byte quantity and therefore
>> 4-byte aligned.
>
>
> ups, didn't notice it.
>
> I'll split xinfo into:
>
> uint16 xinfo;
>
> I don't think making xinfo shorter will save anything, because
> whatever follows it is going to be a 4-byte quantity and therefore
> 4-byte aligned.
ups, didn't notice it.
I'll splitxinfo into:
uint16 xinfo;
uint16 presentFlags;
I guess it helps with the reading? I mean, instead
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
>> Yes, that seems like a very appealing approach. There is plenty of
>> bit-space available in xinfo, and we could reserve a bit each for
>> nrels, nsubxacts, and nmsgs, with set meaning that an integer count of
>> that item is pres
> Yes, that seems like a very appealing approach. There is plenty of
> bit-space available in xinfo, and we could reserve a bit each for
> nrels, nsubxacts, and nmsgs, with set meaning that an integer count of
> that item is present and clear meaning that the count is omitted from
> the struct
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie may 06 23:25:09 -0300 2011:
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Leonardo Francalanci
>> wrote:
>> >> Maybe you should change xl_act_commit to have a separate list of rels to
>> >> drop the init f
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie may 06 23:25:09 -0300 2011:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Leonardo Francalanci
> wrote:
> >> Maybe you should change xl_act_commit to have a separate list of rels to
> >> drop the init fork for (instead of mixing those with the list of files to
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Leonardo Francalanci
wrote:
> >> Maybe you should change xl_act_commit to have a separate list of rels to
> >> drop the init fork for (instead of mixing those with the list of files
to
> >> drop as a whole).
> >
> > I tried to follow your suggestion, tha
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> ERROR: constraints on permanent tables may reference only permanent tables
>> HINT: constraint %s
> Argh, hit send too soon.
> HINT: constraint %s references table %s
That looks like a DETAIL, not a HINT. Also see
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> ERROR: constraints on permanent tables may reference only permanent tables
> HINT: constraint %s
Argh, hit send too soon.
HINT: constraint %s references table %s
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Post
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
>> Maybe you should change xl_act_commit to have a separate list of rels to
>> drop the init fork for (instead of mixing those with the list of files to
>> drop as a whole).
>
> I tried to follow your suggestion, thank you very much.
> Maybe you should change xl_act_commit to have a separate list of rels to
> drop the init fork for (instead of mixing those with the list of files to
> drop as a whole).
I tried to follow your suggestion, thank you very much.
Here's a first attempt at the patch.
I "tested" it with:
crea
Excerpts from Leonardo Francalanci's message of lun abr 18 09:36:13 -0300 2011:
> I think I coded a very basic version of the UNLOGGED to LOGGED patch
> (only wal_level=minimal case for the moment).
>
> To remove the INIT fork, I changed somehow PendingRelDelete to have
> a flag "bool onlyInitFork
I think I coded a very basic version of the UNLOGGED to LOGGED patch
(only wal_level=minimal case for the moment).
To remove the INIT fork, I changed somehow PendingRelDelete to have
a flag "bool onlyInitFork" so that the delete would remove only the INIT
fork at commit.
Everything "works" (note
> > If the master crashes while a transaction that used CREATE TABLE is
>unfinished,
> > both the master and the standby will indefinitely retain identical, stray
>(not
> > referenced by pg_class) files. The catalogs do reference the relfilenode
of
> > each unlogged relation; currently, tha
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:41:18AM +0100, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
>> > > But re-reading it, I don't understand: what's the difference in creating
>> > > a new "regular" table and crashing before emitting the abort record,
>> > > and conv
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:41:18AM +0100, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
> > > But re-reading it, I don't understand: what's the difference in creating
> > > a new "regular" table and crashing before emitting the abort record,
> > > and converting an unlogged table to logged and crashing before
> >
> > But re-reading it, I don't understand: what's the difference in creating
> > a new "regular" table and crashing before emitting the abort record,
> > and converting an unlogged table to logged and crashing before
> > emitting the abort record? How do the standby servers handle a
> > "CREATE
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure we wouldn't accept a patch for a feature that would
>> only work with wal_level=minimal, but it might be a useful starting
>> point for someone else to keep hacking on.
>
> I understand.
>
> Reading your post at
> htt
> I'm pretty sure we wouldn't accept a patch for a feature that would
> only work with wal_level=minimal, but it might be a useful starting
> point for someone else to keep hacking on.
I understand.
Reading your post at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00315.php
I thoug
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
> I read the discussion at
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00315.php
>
> From what I can understand, going from/to unlogged to/from logged in
> the wal_level == minimal case is not too complicated.
>
> Suppose
43 matches
Mail list logo
