Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
David Fetter wrote: > On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 03:32:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > [ shrug... ] To me, HS+SR is actual replication, which would > > justify tagging this release 9.0. With only one of them, it's 8.5. > > I understand that there are power users who would find HS alone to > > be tr

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 while I agree that HS is very useful without SR, I think that it's mostly the well known powerusers inthe community are actively waiting for HS and not so much for SR. For the typical user outside of -hackers or even

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread David Fetter
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 03:32:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 21:22, Tom Lane wrote: > >> No, I don't think so. �HS without SR means you still have to fool > >> with setting up WAL-file-based replication, which despite the > >> existence of pg_stan

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Tom Lane writes: > No, I don't think so. HS without SR means you still have to fool with > setting up WAL-file-based replication, which despite the existence of > pg_standby is a PITA. And you have to make a tradeoff of how often to > flush WAL files to the standby. To be a real candidate for "

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Robert Haas writes: > Hmm. There's something to what you say, but what about the people who > were expecting their patches to be reviewed and perhaps committed in > the forthcoming CommitFest. I proposed a schedule for this release > that involved only three CommitFests and it was rejected, so i

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> I am tempted to say we should clamp down and go into damage control >>> mode sooner rather than later. >> >> The more I see of the HS patch, the more I think the same.  But my >> proposal for "damag

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I am tempted to say we should clamp down and go into damage control >> mode sooner rather than later. > > The more I see of the HS patch, the more I think the same.  But my > proposal for "damage control mode" would be to im

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas writes: >> But FWIW I have dedicated today and tomorrow for SR, and plan to >> dedicate 2-3 days next week as well. > > So you carefully avoided answering the question: when do you think it > might be committable? :-). I was hoping to commit it by the end of

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Devrim GÜNDÜZ
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 15:49 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Right. As someone engaged in the marketplace, I can tell you that > IMNSHO it is almost impossible to overstate the importance of getting > both of these features. We will suffer an enormous loss of face and > respect if we don't. +1. T

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 21:22, Tom Lane wrote: > >> No, I don't think so. ?HS without SR means you still have to fool with > >> setting up WAL-file-based replication, which despite the existence of > >> pg_standby is a PITA. ?And you have to make a tra

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Dave Page
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I am tempted to say we should clamp down and go into damage control >> mode sooner rather than later. > > The more I see of the HS patch, the more I think the same.  But my > proposal for "damage control mode" would be to im

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Dave Page
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> That may well be so, but adding another one is not going to improve >> the situation even a little bit.  I don't think what you're saying >> weakens in the slightest the argument that I was making, namely, that >> if this is

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: [ shrug... ] To me, HS+SR is actual replication, which would justify tagging this release 9.0. With only one of them, it's 8.5. I understand that there are power users who would find HS alone to be tremendously useful, but in terms of what the average user sees, there's a qu

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > I am tempted to say we should clamp down and go into damage control > mode sooner rather than later. The more I see of the HS patch, the more I think the same. But my proposal for "damage control mode" would be to immediately punt everything else to the next release and foc

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> Yes. I think there's tremendous value to PG if we could get HS+SR into >> 8.5. And I know that SR is what Heikki is working on exclusively. > That hasn't been true for some time, I haven't spent very much time on > SR recently. Not enough, real

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander writes: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 21:22, Tom Lane wrote: >> No, I don't think so.  HS without SR means you still have to fool with >> setting up WAL-file-based replication, which despite the existence of >> pg_standby is a PITA.  And you have to make a tradeoff of how often to >> f

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 21:22, Tom Lane wrote: > "Greg Sabino Mullane" writes: >>> However, HS is already in the tree, and HS without SR is a whole lot >>> less compelling than HS with SR.  So it's going to be pretty >>> unsatisfying if we can't get SR in there. > >> I don't think that's the case.

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Tom Lane
"Greg Sabino Mullane" writes: >> However, HS is already in the tree, and HS without SR is a whole lot >> less compelling than HS with SR. So it's going to be pretty >> unsatisfying if we can't get SR in there. > I don't think that's the case. Having HS alone would be a huge win, > and the sooner

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Jan 7, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > But FWIW I have dedicated today and tomorrow for SR, and plan to > dedicate 2-3 days next week as well. Should we then await what you determine over the next week? Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgr

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Josh Berkus wrote: > Yes. I think there's tremendous value to PG if we could get HS+SR into > 8.5. And I know that SR is what Heikki is working on exclusively. That hasn't been true for some time, I haven't spent very much time on SR recently. Not enough, really. But FWIW I have dedicated today

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >> > I like Andres' suggestion upthread of setting a deadline and >> > determining to bounce the patch if it's not committed by that date. >> > If it turns out we have to bounce it, that stinks, but I do

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Josh Berkus
> I am really reluctant to go through another cycle of giving a big > feature as much time as humanly possible before bouncing it, and then > bouncing it anyway, and I fear that is what will happen. I don't > believe this patch has had a major rewrite since it was submitted for > the September Co

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> That may well be so, but adding another one is not going to improve >> the situation even a little bit.  I don't think what you're saying >> weakens in the slightest the argument that I was making, namely, that >> if this is

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Josh Berkus
> Well, the argument to my mind is about a suitable value of "RSN". > I think you were stating that we should bounce SR if it's not committed > before the final commitfest starts (ie, next week). I think we can give > it more slack than that. Maybe the end of the fest (where the length of > the

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > That may well be so, but adding another one is not going to improve > the situation even a little bit. I don't think what you're saying > weakens in the slightest the argument that I was making, namely, that > if this isn't committed RSN it should be postponed to 8.6. Do yo

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > I like Andres' suggestion upthread of setting a deadline and > > determining to bounce the patch if it's not committed by that date. > > If it turns out we have to bounce it, that stinks, but I don't think > > it makes sense to go to beta with a huge, bare

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I like Andres' suggestion upthread of setting a deadline and >> determining to bounce the patch if it's not committed by that date. >> If it turns out we have to bounce it, that stinks, but I don't think >> it makes sense to

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > I like Andres' suggestion upthread of setting a deadline and > determining to bounce the patch if it's not committed by that date. > If it turns out we have to bounce it, that stinks, but I don't think > it makes sense to go to beta with a huge, barely-tested pile of code > i

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 > while I agree that HS is very useful without SR, I think that it's > mostly the well known powerusers inthe community are actively waiting > for HS and not so much for SR. For the typical user outside of -hackers > or even -general I'm not so

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: >> We made the mistake last time to delay the release significantly for a >> single feature. It turned out said feature didn't make it *anyway*. >> Let's not repeat that mistake. > > Yeah, we've certainly learned that less

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 However, HS is already in the tree, and HS without SR is a whole lot less compelling than HS with SR. So it's going to be pretty unsatisfying if we can't get SR in there. I don't think that's the case. Having HS a

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 > However, HS is already in the tree, and HS without SR is a whole lot > less compelling than HS with SR. So it's going to be pretty > unsatisfying if we can't get SR in there. I don't think that's the case. Having HS alone would be a huge win

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander writes: > We made the mistake last time to delay the release significantly for a > single feature. It turned out said feature didn't make it *anyway*. > Let's not repeat that mistake. Yeah, we've certainly learned that lesson often enough, or should I say failed to learn that less

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Robert Haas
2010/1/7 Magnus Hagander : > 2010/1/7 Devrim GÜNDÜZ : >> On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 11:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> >>> Personally, I would rather have a release without SR in June or July >>> than a release with SR in August or September. > > June, yes. July, frankly, no, because July == September,

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Andres Freund
On Thursday 07 January 2010 18:10:43 Magnus Hagander wrote: > Not having our release schedule driven by marketing is a *strength* of > our project! Yes. > We made the mistake last time to delay the release significantly for a > single feature. It turned out said feature didn't make it *anyway*. >

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Magnus Hagander
2010/1/7 Devrim GÜNDÜZ : > On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 11:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> Personally, I would rather have a release without SR in June or July >> than a release with SR in August or September. June, yes. July, frankly, no, because July == September, when it comes to any such scheduling

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Devrim GÜNDÜZ
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 11:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > Personally, I would rather have a release without SR in June or July > than a release with SR in August or September. If SR will be ready until then, I'd like to see a release in September which has SR in it. We already postponed SR a lot.

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Fujii Masao wrote: >>> I've done that in my git branch. >> >> Could you push that git branch to a public place? > > Ahh, sorry, forgot that again. It's there now, at > git://git.postgresql.org/git/users/heikki/postgres.git, branch > 'repl

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-06 Thread Tom Lane
Craig Ringer writes: > Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> This was probably discussed to death earlier, but: why was it decided to >>> not simply use a different port for listening for walsender >>> connections? >> >> I believe that using a differ

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-06 Thread Craig Ringer
Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> This was probably discussed to death earlier, but: why was it decided to >> not simply use a different port for listening for walsender >> connections? > > I believe that using a different port would make the setup >

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-06 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Fujii Masao wrote: >> I've done that in my git branch. > > Could you push that git branch to a public place? Ahh, sorry, forgot that again. It's there now, at git://git.postgresql.org/git/users/heikki/postgres.git, branch 'replication'. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterp

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-05 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > This was probably discussed to death earlier, but: why was it decided to > not simply use a different port for listening for walsender > connections? I believe that using a different port would make the setup of replication messier; look fo

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-05 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I think it would be better to utilize the existing array of child > processes in pmsignal.c. Instead of having postmaster peek into > WalSndCtlData, let's add a new state to PMChildFlags, > PM_CHILD_WALSENDER, which is just like PM_CHILD

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-05 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Heikki Linnakangas escribió: > Looking at the latest streaming replication patch, I don't much like the > signaling between WAL sender and postmaster. It seems complicated, and > as a rule of thumb postmaster shouldn't be accessing shared memory. The > current signaling is: > > 1. A new connection

[HACKERS] Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

2010-01-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Looking at the latest streaming replication patch, I don't much like the signaling between WAL sender and postmaster. It seems complicated, and as a rule of thumb postmaster shouldn't be accessing shared memory. The current signaling is: 1. A new connection arrives. A new backend process is forked