Petr Jelinek wrote:
> >>On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Fujii Masao
> >>wrote:
> >>>I got the following assertion failure when I executed
> >>>pg_xact_commit_timestamp()
> >>>in the standby server.
> >>>
> >>>=# select pg_xact_commit_timestamp('1000'::xid);
> >>>TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((oldes
On 05/01/15 17:50, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 05/01/15 16:17, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 05/01/15 07:28, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Fujii Masao
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
Pushed with some extra cosmetic tweaks.
I got the following assert
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> So, we would need additional information other than the node ID *and*
> the timestamp to ensure proper transaction commit ordering on Windows.
> That's not cool and makes this feature very limited on this platform.
You can't use the timesta
On 06/01/15 08:58, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
localhost template1=# select clock_timestamp(), pg_sleep(.1 * (n % 2)) from
generate_series(0,7) t(n);
clock_timestamp| pg_sleep
---+--
2014-12-18
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> localhost template1=# select clock_timestamp(), pg_sleep(.1 * (n % 2)) from
> generate_series(0,7) t(n);
> clock_timestamp| pg_sleep
> ---+--
> 2014-12-18 08:34:34.522126+00 |
> 2014-12-18 0
On 05/01/15 16:17, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 05/01/15 07:28, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Fujii Masao
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
Pushed with some extra cosmetic tweaks.
I got the following assertion failure when I executed
pg_xact_comm
On 05/01/15 07:28, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
Pushed with some extra cosmetic tweaks.
I got the following assertion failure when I executed pg_xact_commit_timestamp()
in the standby server.
=
On 12/19/2014 02:53 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> The test assumed that no two transactions of a given backend will get the same
> timestamp value from now(). That holds so long as ticks of the system time
> are small enough. Not so on at least some Windows configurations.
Most Windows systems with no
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Pushed with some extra cosmetic tweaks.
>
> I got the following assertion failure when I executed
> pg_xact_commit_timestamp()
> in the standby server.
>
> =# select pg_xact_commit_t
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 01:05:31AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:12:10AM -0800, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> > > FWIW, I just tried that with MinGW-32 and I can see the error on Win7.
> > > I also checked that changing "< now()" to "<= now()" fixed t
Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:12:10AM -0800, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > FWIW, I just tried that with MinGW-32 and I can see the error on Win7.
> > I also checked that changing "< now()" to "<= now()" fixed the
> > problem, so your assumption was right, Petr.
>
> Committed, after
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:12:10AM -0800, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 02:23:39AM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> >> On 08/12/14 00:56, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> >The commit_ts test suite gives me the attached diff on a 32-bit Mi
On 15/12/14 09:12, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 02:23:39AM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 08/12/14 00:56, Noah Misch wrote:
The commit_ts test suite gives me the attached diff on a 32-bit MinGW build
running on 64-bit Windows
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 02:23:39AM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 08/12/14 00:56, Noah Misch wrote:
>> >The commit_ts test suite gives me the attached diff on a 32-bit MinGW build
>> >running on 64-bit Windows Server 2003. I have not checked
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 02:23:39AM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 08/12/14 00:56, Noah Misch wrote:
> >The commit_ts test suite gives me the attached diff on a 32-bit MinGW build
> >running on 64-bit Windows Server 2003. I have not checked other Windows
> >configurations; the suite does pass on G
On 08/12/14 00:56, Noah Misch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 11:54:38AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Pushed with some extra cosmetic tweaks.
The commit_ts test suite gives me the attached diff on a 32-bit MinGW build
running on 64-bit Windows Server 2003. I have not checked other Windows
conf
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 11:54:38AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Pushed with some extra cosmetic tweaks.
The commit_ts test suite gives me the attached diff on a 32-bit MinGW build
running on 64-bit Windows Server 2003. I have not checked other Windows
configurations; the suite does pass on GNU/
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 4 December 2014 at 03:08, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>> #1. set up and start the master and standby servers with
>> track_commit_timestamp disabled
>> #2. enable track_commit_timestamp in the master and restart the master
>> #3. run some write tr
On 4 December 2014 at 03:08, Fujii Masao wrote:
> #1. set up and start the master and standby servers with
> track_commit_timestamp disabled
> #2. enable track_commit_timestamp in the master and restart the master
> #3. run some write transactions
> #4. enable track_commit_timestamp in the standb
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Pushed with some extra cosmetic tweaks.
I got the following assertion failure when I executed pg_xact_commit_timestamp()
in the standby server.
=# select pg_xact_commit_timestamp('1000'::xid);
TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((oldestCommitTs) !=
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>> > I'm kind of disappointed that, in spite of previous review comments,
>> > this got committed with extensive use of the CommitTs naming. I think
>> > that's confusing, but it's also something t
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > I'm kind of disappointed that, in spite of previous review comments,
> > this got committed with extensive use of the CommitTs naming. I think
> > that's confusing, but it's also something that will be awkward if we
> > want to add other data, such a
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I made two more changes:
> > 1. introduce newestCommitTs. Original code was using lastCommitXact to
> > check that no "future" transaction is asked for, but this doesn't really
> > work if a long-running transaction
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I made two more changes:
> 1. introduce newestCommitTs. Original code was using lastCommitXact to
> check that no "future" transaction is asked for, but this doesn't really
> work if a long-running transaction is committed, because asking fo
On 03/12/14 15:54, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Pushed with some extra cosmetic tweaks.
Cool, thanks!
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To ma
Pushed with some extra cosmetic tweaks.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/m
Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 25/11/14 16:30, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Petr Jelinek wrote:
> >>On 25/11/14 16:23, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >>>Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> Maybe 0 should get translated to a NULL return, instead of a bogus
> timestamp.
> >>>
> >>>That's one idea --- surely no transact
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 25 November 2014 at 16:18, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>
>> Won't the pg_last_committed_xact() on slave + pg_xact_commit_timestamp() on
>> master with the xid returned by slave accomplish the same thing?
>
> Surely the pg_last_committed_xact() will
On 25 November 2014 at 16:18, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Won't the pg_last_committed_xact() on slave + pg_xact_commit_timestamp() on
> master with the xid returned by slave accomplish the same thing?
Surely the pg_last_committed_xact() will return the same value on
standby as it did on the master?
-
On 25/11/14 17:16, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 25 November 2014 at 13:35, Fujii Masao wrote:
Can I check my understanding? Probably we cannot use this feature to calculate
the actual replication lag by, for example, comparing the result of
pg_last_committed_xact() in the master and that of
pg_last_x
On 25 November 2014 at 13:35, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Can I check my understanding? Probably we cannot use this feature to calculate
> the actual replication lag by, for example, comparing the result of
> pg_last_committed_xact() in the master and that of
> pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp()
> in the s
On 25/11/14 16:30, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 25/11/14 16:23, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
Maybe 0 should get translated to a NULL return, instead of a bogus timestamp.
That's one idea --- surely no transaction is going to commit at 00:00:00
on 2000-01-01 anym
Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 25/11/14 16:23, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Robert Haas wrote:
> >>Maybe 0 should get translated to a NULL return, instead of a bogus
> >>timestamp.
> >
> >That's one idea --- surely no transaction is going to commit at 00:00:00
> >on 2000-01-01 anymore. Yet this is somewha
On 25/11/14 16:23, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
And here is v10 which fixes conflicts with Heikki's WAL API changes (no
changes otherwise).
After so
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> >> wrote:
> >> >> And here is v10 which fixes conflicts with Heikki's WAL API changes (no
> >> >> changes otherwise).
> >> >
> >> > After som
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>> >> And here is v10 which fixes conflicts with Heikki's WAL API changes (no
>> >> changes otherwise).
>> >
>> > After some slight additional changes, here's v
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>> >> And here is v10 which fixes conflicts with Heikki's WAL API changes (no
>> >> changes otherwise).
>> >
>> > After some slight additional changes, here's
Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >> And here is v10 which fixes conflicts with Heikki's WAL API changes (no
> >> changes otherwise).
> >
> > After some slight additional changes, here's v11, which I intend to
> > commit early tomorrow. The main chang
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>> And here is v10 which fixes conflicts with Heikki's WAL API changes (no
>> changes otherwise).
>
> After some slight additional changes, here's v11, which I intend to
> commit early tomorrow. The main change is moving the test module from
> And here is v10 which fixes conflicts with Heikki's WAL API changes (no
> changes otherwise).
After some slight additional changes, here's v11, which I intend to
commit early tomorrow. The main change is moving the test module from
contrib to src/test/modules.
--
Álvaro Herrera
On 21/11/14 00:17, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 19/11/14 17:30, Steve Singer wrote:
On 11/19/2014 08:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I think we're overblowing the pg_upgrade issue. Surely we don't need to
preserve commit_ts data when upgrading across major versions; and
pg_upgrade is perfectly prepare
On 19/11/14 17:30, Steve Singer wrote:
On 11/19/2014 08:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I think we're overblowing the pg_upgrade issue. Surely we don't need to
preserve commit_ts data when upgrading across major versions; and
pg_upgrade is perfectly prepared to remove old data when upgrading
(act
On 11/19/2014 08:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I think we're overblowing the pg_upgrade issue. Surely we don't need to
preserve commit_ts data when upgrading across major versions; and
pg_upgrade is perfectly prepared to remove old data when upgrading
(actually it just doesn't copy it; consider
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> This is good point, we are not too late in the cycle that LSN couldn't be
>> added later if we find that it is indeed needed (and we don't have to care
>> about pg_upgrade until beta).
>
> I think we're overblowing the
Petr Jelinek wrote:
> This is good point, we are not too late in the cycle that LSN couldn't be
> added later if we find that it is indeed needed (and we don't have to care
> about pg_upgrade until beta).
I think we're overblowing the pg_upgrade issue. Surely we don't need to
preserve commit_ts
On 19/11/14 12:20, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 19 November 2014 02:12, Petr Jelinek wrote:
Maybe we need better explanation of the LSN use-case(s) to understand why it
should be stored here and why the other solutions are significantly worse.
We should apply the same standard that has been applied
On 19 November 2014 02:12, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Maybe we need better explanation of the LSN use-case(s) to understand why it
> should be stored here and why the other solutions are significantly worse.
We should apply the same standard that has been applied elsewhere. If
someone can show some s
On 15/11/14 13:36, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 15 November 2014 04:32, Steve Singer wrote:
The use cases I'm talking about aren't really replication related. Often I
have come across systems that want to do something such as 'select * from
orders where X > the_last_row_I_saw order by X' and then do
On 15 November 2014 04:32, Steve Singer wrote:
> The use cases I'm talking about aren't really replication related. Often I
> have come across systems that want to do something such as 'select * from
> orders where X > the_last_row_I_saw order by X' and then do further
> processing on the order.
On 11/14/2014 08:21 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
The requested information is already available, as discussed. Logical
decoding adds commit ordering for *exactly* the purpose of using it
for replication, available to all solutions. This often requested
feature has now been added and doesn't need to be
On 14 November 2014 17:12, Robert Haas wrote:
> We are not talking about loading 20 new
> requirements on top of this patch; that would be intolerable. We're
> talking about adding one additional piece of information that has been
> requested multiple times over the years.
The requested informa
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 13 November 2014 21:24, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Ordering transactions in LSN order is very precisly the remit of the
>>> existing logical decoding API. Any user that wishes to see a com
On 13 November 2014 21:24, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Ordering transactions in LSN order is very precisly the remit of the
>> existing logical decoding API. Any user that wishes to see a commits
>> in sequence can do so using that API. BDR already
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Ordering transactions in LSN order is very precisly the remit of the
> existing logical decoding API. Any user that wishes to see a commits
> in sequence can do so using that API. BDR already does this, as do
> other users of the decoding API.
On 13/11/14 14:18, Simon Riggs wrote:
So in summary... the components are
* Commit LSN order is useful for applying changes - available by
logical decoding
* Commit timestamps and nodeid are useful for conflict resolution -
available from this patch
Both components have been designed in ways th
On 9 November 2014 16:57, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 11/07/2014 07:07 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>
>
>> The list of what is useful might be long, but we can't have everything
>> there as there are space constraints, and LSN is another 8 bytes and I still
>> want to have some bytes for storing the "orig
On 13/11/14 07:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
Brief list of changes:
- the commit timestamp record now stores timestamp, lsn and nodeid
Now that not only the commit timestamp is stored, calling that "commit
timestamp", "committs" or "commit_t
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Brief list of changes:
> - the commit timestamp record now stores timestamp, lsn and nodeid
Now that not only the commit timestamp is stored, calling that "commit
timestamp", "committs" or "commit_timestamp" is strange, no? If this
patch is
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 11/12/14, 7:06 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> - if the xid passed to get interface is out of range -infinity timestamp
>> is returned (I think it's bad idea to throw errors here as the valid range
>> is not static and same ID can start throwi
On 11/12/14, 7:06 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
- if the xid passed to get interface is out of range -infinity timestamp is
returned (I think it's bad idea to throw errors here as the valid range is not
static and same ID can start throwing errors between calls theoretically)
Wouldn't NULL be mor
On 10/11/14 14:53, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
I did the calculation above wrong btw, it's actually 20 bytes not 24 bytes
per record, I am inclined to just say we can live with that.
If you do it as 20 bytes, you'll have to do some work to squeeze o
Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 11/11/14, 2:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Jim Nasby wrote:
> >>On 11/10/14, 7:40 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> >>>Ah, right. So AFAIK we don't need to keep anything older than
> >>>RecentXmin or something like that -- which is not too old. If I recall
> >>>correctly Josh
On 11/11/14, 2:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jim Nasby wrote:
On 11/10/14, 7:40 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Ah, right. So AFAIK we don't need to keep anything older than
RecentXmin or something like that -- which is not too old. If I recall
correctly Josh Berkus was saying in a thread about pg
Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 11/10/14, 7:40 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Ah, right. So AFAIK we don't need to keep anything older than
> >RecentXmin or something like that -- which is not too old. If I recall
> >correctly Josh Berkus was saying in a thread about pg_multixact that it
> >used about 128kB
On 11/10/14, 7:40 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
I think the key question here is the time for which the data needs to
be retained. 2^32 of anything is a lot, but why keep around that
number of records rat
On 2014-11-11 17:09:54 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 11 November 2014 16:19, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2014-11-11 16:10:47 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On 4 November 2014 08:23, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>
> >> >> 6) Shouldn't any value update of track_commit_timestamp be tracked in
> >> >> XL
On 11 November 2014 16:19, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-11-11 16:10:47 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 4 November 2014 08:23, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> >> 6) Shouldn't any value update of track_commit_timestamp be tracked in
>> >> XLogReportParameters? That's thinking about making the commit t
On 9 November 2014 16:57, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 11/07/2014 07:07 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>
>
>> The list of what is useful might be long, but we can't have everything
>> there as there are space constraints, and LSN is another 8 bytes and I still
>> want to have some bytes for storing the "orig
On 2014-11-11 16:10:47 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 4 November 2014 08:23, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >> 6) Shouldn't any value update of track_commit_timestamp be tracked in
> >> XLogReportParameters? That's thinking about making the commit timestamp
> >> available on standbys as well..
> >
> >
On 4 November 2014 08:23, Andres Freund wrote:
>> 6) Shouldn't any value update of track_commit_timestamp be tracked in
>> XLogReportParameters? That's thinking about making the commit timestamp
>> available on standbys as well..
>
> Yes, it should.
Agree committs should be able to run on standb
On 11/10/2014 08:39 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 09/11/14 17:57, Steve Singer wrote:
On 11/07/2014 07:07 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
The list of what is useful might be long, but we can't have everything
there as there are space constraints, and LSN is another 8 bytes and I
still want to have some by
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Ah, right. So AFAIK we don't need to keep anything older than
> RecentXmin or something like that -- which is not too old. If I recall
> correctly Josh Berkus was saying in a thread about pg_multixact that it
> used about 128kB or so in <=
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> I did the calculation above wrong btw, it's actually 20 bytes not 24 bytes
> per record, I am inclined to just say we can live with that.
If you do it as 20 bytes, you'll have to do some work to squeeze out
the alignment padding. I'm incline
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I think the key question here is the time for which the data needs to
> >> be retained. 2^32 of anything is a lot, but why keep around that
> >> number of records rather than more (after all,
On 09/11/14 17:57, Steve Singer wrote:
On 11/07/2014 07:07 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
The list of what is useful might be long, but we can't have everything
there as there are space constraints, and LSN is another 8 bytes and I
still want to have some bytes for storing the "origin" or whatever you
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen
wrote:
> There is no guarantee that a commit with later LSN has a later
> timestamp. There are cases where the clock could move significantly
> backwards.
Good point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgr
On 10/11/14 08:01, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 11:57 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
The reason why Jim and myself are asking for the LSN and not just the
timestamp is that I want to be able to order the transactions. Jim
pointed out earlier in the thread that just ordering on time
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think the key question here is the time for which the data needs to
>> be retained. 2^32 of anything is a lot, but why keep around that
>> number of records rather than more (after all, we have epochs to
>> distinguis
On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 11:57 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
> The reason why Jim and myself are asking for the LSN and not just the
> timestamp is that I want to be able to order the transactions. Jim
> pointed out earlier in the thread that just ordering on timestamp allows
> for multiple transacti
Robert Haas wrote:
> I think the key question here is the time for which the data needs to
> be retained. 2^32 of anything is a lot, but why keep around that
> number of records rather than more (after all, we have epochs to
> distinguish one use of a given txid from another) or fewer?
The probl
On 11/07/2014 07:07 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
The list of what is useful might be long, but we can't have everything
there as there are space constraints, and LSN is another 8 bytes and I
still want to have some bytes for storing the "origin" or whatever you
want to call it there, as that's the
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> That's not what I said. I am actually ok with adding the LSN if people see
> it useful.
> I was just wondering if we can make the record smaller somehow - 24bytes per
> txid is around 96GB of data for whole txid range and won't work with pages
On 08/11/14 03:05, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
but we can't have everything there
as there are space constraints, and LSN is another 8 bytes and I still want
to have some bytes for storing the "origin" or whatever you want to call it
there, as that's t
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> The list of what is useful might be long,
That's FUD. It might also be short.
> but we can't have everything there
> as there are space constraints, and LSN is another 8 bytes and I still want
> to have some bytes for storing the "origin" or
On 08/11/14 00:35, Robert Haas wrote:
On Nov 5, 2014, at 7:31 PM, Steve Singer wrote:
On 11/05/2014 05:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-11-05 17:17:05 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
Imo that's essentially a different feature. What you essentially would
need here is a 'commit sequence number' - b
On Nov 4, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 11/3/14 5:17 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>> Please don't name anything "committs". That looks like a misspelling of
>>> something.
>>>
>>> There is nothing wrong with
>>>
>>> pg_get_transaction_commit_timestamp()
>>>
>>> If you want to redu
> On Nov 5, 2014, at 7:31 PM, Steve Singer wrote:
>> On 11/05/2014 05:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2014-11-05 17:17:05 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
>> Imo that's essentially a different feature. What you essentially would
>> need here is a 'commit sequence number' - but no timestamps. And
>> pr
On 2014-11-07 17:54:32 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 06/11/14 08:50, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2014-11-05 19:31:52 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
> >>It also doesn't allow you to load two extensions at once on a system.
> >>You wouldn't be able to have both the 'steve_commit_order' extension
> >>and
On 06/11/14 01:31, Steve Singer wrote:
On 11/05/2014 05:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Is this patch supposed to:
A) Add commit timestamp tracking but nothing more
B) Add infrastructure to store commit timestamps and provide a facility
for storing additional bits of data extensions might want to
On 06/11/14 08:50, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-11-05 19:31:52 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
It also doesn't allow you to load two extensions at once on a system.
You wouldn't be able to have both the 'steve_commit_order' extension
and BDR installed at the same time. I don't think this patch does
On 11/01/2014 09:00 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 1) It is untested and actually there is no direct use for it in core.
> 2) Pushing code that we know as dead is no good, that's a feature more
> or less defined as maybe-useful-but-we-are-not-sure-yet-what-to-do-with-it.
> 3) If you're going to re-us
On 2014-11-05 19:31:52 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 11/05/2014 05:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2014-11-05 17:17:05 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
> >Imo that's essentially a different feature. What you essentially would
> >need here is a 'commit sequence number' - but no timestamps. And
> >prob
On 11/05/2014 05:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-11-05 17:17:05 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
Imo that's essentially a different feature. What you essentially would
need here is a 'commit sequence number' - but no timestamps. And
probably to be useful that number has to be 8 bytes in itself.
I
On 2014-11-05 17:17:05 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
> It isn't just 'replication' systems that have a need for getting the commit
> order of transactions on a single system. I have a application (not slony)
> where we want to query a table but order the output based on the transaction
> commit order
On 11/05/2014 11:23 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
Except that commit time is not guaranteed unique *even on a single
system*. That's my whole point. If we're going to bother with all the
commit time machinery it seems really silly to provide a way to
uniquely order every commit.
Clearly trying to u
Jim Nasby wrote:
> for a single system AIUI all we need to do is expose the LSN of
> each commit record and that will give you the exact and unique
> order in which transactions committed.
>
> This isn't a hypothetical feature either; if we had this,
> logical replication systems wouldn't have to
On 2014-11-05 10:34:40 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 11/5/14, 10:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>Except that commit time is not guaranteed unique *even on a single
> >>>system*. That's my whole point. If we're going to bother with all the
> >>>commit time machinery it seems really silly to provide a
On 2014-11-05 10:23:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
>
>
> On 11/5/14, 6:10 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >In addition, I wonder if this feature would be misused. Record
> >transaction ids to a table to find out commit order (use case could be
> >storing historical row versions for example).
On 11/5/14, 10:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Except that commit time is not guaranteed unique *even on a single
>system*. That's my whole point. If we're going to bother with all the
>commit time machinery it seems really silly to provide a way to
>uniquely order every commit.
Well. I think that's
On 11/5/14, 6:10 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
In addition, I wonder if this feature would be misused. Record
transaction ids to a table to find out commit order (use case could be
storing historical row versions for example). Do a dump and restore on
another cluster, and all the t
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
