Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-02-03 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 20:27 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > I'd appreciate it if you could review the relation-specific conflict > > patch, 'cos it's still important. > > One fundamental gripe I have about that approach is that it's hard to > predict when you will be saved by the cache and w

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-02-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:01 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> Putting it back takes time and >> given enough of that rare cloth, it will eventually be put back. > > Looks like I'll have time to add the starts-at-shutdown-checkpoint item > back in after all. Great! Thank you, mu

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-02-01 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:01 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > Putting it back takes time and > given enough of that rare cloth, it will eventually be put back. Looks like I'll have time to add the starts-at-shutdown-checkpoint item back in after all. I'd appreciate it if you could review the relation-

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-30 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:52 +, Greg Stark wrote: > Can you explain what it does in > more detail so we can understand why it's necessary for a sensible set > of features? I've slimmed down the patch to make it clearer what it does, having committed some refactoring. Problem: Currently when w

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:41 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > > Is there a working list of HS must-fix items somewhere which people > agree on? Or are we still lacking consensus? VACUUM FULL, I believe is one. Joshua D. Drake > > --Josh Berkus > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Comman

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Josh Berkus
All, Is there a working list of HS must-fix items somewhere which people agree on? Or are we still lacking consensus? --Josh Berkus -- 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] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 18:08 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > Two months on, there is > > zero sign of any activity on that front > > I'm surprised that you call 14 commits in 28 days following a publicly > available priority list: "zero sign of

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> Two months on, there is >> zero sign of any activity on that front > > I'm surprised that you call 14 commits in 28 days following a publicly > available priority list: "zero sign of acti

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > Two months on, there is > zero sign of any activity on that front I'm surprised that you call 14 commits in 28 days following a publicly available priority list: "zero sign of activity". Further discussion seems pointless. -- Simon Riggs

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > Exactly. It would be nice to see 9.0 come out in 2010, and we're not > going to get there unless we start fixing the issues that are actually > release-blockers, rather than adding new features. Hot Standby was > committed with at least one

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:56 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> I think we should extend the time available to make sure we have a >> sensible set of features for 9.0. The heat of this discussion tells me >> that we are going to be lacking fea

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:20 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:10 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: yeah and we keep finding major bugs nearly daily Facts, please? 5 seconds of time spent on archives.postgresql.org show at leas

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:52 +, Greg Stark wrote: > You said "I think we should extend the time available to make sure we > have a sensible set of features for 9.0." Perhaps part of the problem > is that I couldn't understand what your patch did from the description > you posted and can't eval

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:56 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > I think we should extend the time available to make sure we have a > sensible set of features for 9.0. The heat of this discussion tells me > that we are going to be lacking features that are must-have to someone, > whether or not they are in

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 16:44 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > I removed code that you mentioned was > > buggy because I don't have time to fix it and it is not high enough up > > the priority list. We have discussed all of these things before yet you > > raise them again as

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Greg Stark
The fundamental disagreement here is over what qualifies as a "wishlist" item, aka a feature or added functionality. And what qualifies as a must-fix bug. Priorities are context sensitive. If this were early in the cycle then working on bigger impact features like conflict resolution code might be

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > I removed code that you mentioned was > buggy because I don't have time to fix it and it is not high enough up > the priority list. We have discussed all of these things before yet you > raise them again as if those things have never been said. *sigh*. Yeah, we've been through

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I even *fixed* that already, but you decided to take it out before > committing. I then added it to the list of must-fix items in the TODO > list, but you took that out too. I have no objection to doing things > in smaller steps, but t

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 07:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > >> So what was the clear result? > > > > I have spoken clearly enough. You were welcome to attend the Hot Standby > > U

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> So what was the clear result? > > I have spoken clearly enough. You were welcome to attend the Hot Standby > User Group. The fact that you did not expresses your own priorities >

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:20 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:10 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > > > >> yeah and we keep finding major bugs nearly daily > > > > Facts, please? > > > > 5 seconds of time spent on archives.postgresql.org show

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:12 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: There are many features we should add. I will add them in priority order until forced to stop. we are past the point of adding new features for 9.0 imho So presumably we cannot add the new feature to start hot

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:10 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: yeah and we keep finding major bugs nearly daily Facts, please? 5 seconds of time spent on archives.postgresql.org show at least the following SR/HS related bugs in the last 7 days or so: http://archives.p

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:12 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > > > > There are many features we should add. I will add them in priority order > > until forced to stop. > > we are past the point of adding new features for 9.0 imho So presumably we cannot add the new feature to start hot standb

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Magnus Hagander
2010/1/29 Stefan Kaltenbrunner : > Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> >>> So what was the clear result? >> >> I have spoken clearly enough. You were welcome to attend the Hot Standby >> User Group. The fact that you did not expresses your own pr

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:10 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > yeah and we keep finding major bugs nearly daily Facts, please? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://ww

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: So what was the clear result? I have spoken clearly enough. You were welcome to attend the Hot Standby User Group. The fact that you did not expresses your own priorities quite well, ISTM. Your protestations to kn

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: Conflict resolution improvements are important to include in this release, as discussed many times. Proposal given here http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01175.php presents a viable design to improve this. Following patch is a c

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > So what was the clear result? I have spoken clearly enough. You were welcome to attend the Hot Standby User Group. The fact that you did not expresses your own priorities quite well, ISTM. Your protestations to know more about the wis

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 08:26 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Conflict resolution improvements are important to include in this >>> release, as discussed many times. Proposal given here >>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01175.p

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 09:20 +0100, Guillaume Smet wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > That was not the feedback I have received. Nobody has commented on that > > to me, though many have commented on the need for the current patch. As > > mentioned, I went to the troubl

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Guillaume Smet
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > That was not the feedback I have received. Nobody has commented on that > to me, though many have commented on the need for the current patch. As > mentioned, I went to the trouble of running a meeting to gain additional > feedback and the resu

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-29 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 08:26 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > Conflict resolution improvements are important to include in this > > release, as discussed many times. Proposal given here > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01175.php > > presents a viab

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-28 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > Conflict resolution improvements are important to include in this > release, as discussed many times. Proposal given here > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01175.php > presents a viable design to improve this. > > Following patch is a complete working i

[HACKERS] Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010-01-28 Thread Simon Riggs
Conflict resolution improvements are important to include in this release, as discussed many times. Proposal given here http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01175.php presents a viable design to improve this. Following patch is a complete working implementation of that design.