On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 16:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> My memory is lousy at the best of times, but when have we had a minor
> >>> release that would have broken this due to changed format?
>
> >> Not often,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The project policy has always been that we don't change on-disk formats
> in minor releases. I'm not entirely clear why you are so keen on
> carving out an exception for WAL data.
I had always thought of the policy as "initdb is not required" not "no on-dis
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well it's never been a factor before so I'm not sure there is a
> policy. Is there now a policy that WAL files like database formats are
> as far as possible not going to be changed in minor versions?
> This means if there's a bug fix that affects WAL re
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This would be the exception, not the rule, and should not be documented
> as if it were the rule. It's not really different from telling people
> to expect a forced initdb at a minor release: you are simply
> misrepresenting the project's policy.
Well it's
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> My memory is lousy at the best of times, but when have we had a minor
>>> release that would have broken this due to changed format?
>> Not often, which is why I mention the possibility of having
>> interopera
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> My memory is lousy at the best of times, but when have we had a minor
>> release that would have broken this due to changed format? OTOH, the
>> Primary and Backup servers need the same config settings (e.g.
>> --enable-integer-datetimes), architecture
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 13:25 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > In general, log shipping between servers running different release
> > levels will not be possible. However, it may be possible for servers
> > running different minor release levels e.g. 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 to
> > in
Simon Riggs wrote:
In general, log shipping between servers running different release
levels will not be possible. However, it may be possible for servers
running different minor release levels e.g. 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 to
inter-operate successfully. No formal support for that is offered and
there ma
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 12:01 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > 1. Notes on restartable recovery
Previously submitted
> > 2. Notes on standby functionality
> > 3. discussion on rolling your own record-level polling using
> > pg_xlogfile_name_offset()
Given below, but not in SGML
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 09:14 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > OK, I'll submit a C program called pg_standby so that we have an
> > approved and portable version of the script, allowing it to be
> > documented more easily.
>
> I think we are still waiting for this. I am als
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 09:14 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, I'll submit a C program called pg_standby so that we have an
> > > approved and portable version of the script, allowing it to be
> > > documented more easily.
> >
> > I think we ar
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 11:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > If we are in standby mode, then rather than ending recovery we go into a
> > > wait loop. We poll for the next file, then sleep for 1000 ms, then poll
> > > again. When a file a
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 11:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If we are in standby mode, then rather than ending recovery we go into a
> > wait loop. We poll for the next file, then sleep for 1000 ms, then poll
> > again. When a file arrives we mark a restartpoint
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we are in standby mode, then rather than ending recovery we go into a
> wait loop. We poll for the next file, then sleep for 1000 ms, then poll
> again. When a file arrives we mark a restartpoint each checkpoint.
> We need the standby_mode to signify th
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 09:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm in process of reviewing the restartable-recovery patch,
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00356.php
> and I'm wondering if we really need to invent a "standby mode" boolean
> to get the right behavior. The problem I s
I'm in process of reviewing the restartable-recovery patch,
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00356.php
and I'm wondering if we really need to invent a "standby mode" boolean
to get the right behavior. The problem I see with that flag is that
it'd be static over a run, wherea
16 matches
Mail list logo
