Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-18 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 00:48 +, Simon Riggs wrote: Complete but rough hack, for comments, but nothing surprising. This is an implicit requirement from our earlier agreed API, so its blocking further work on Sync Rep. I'm looking to commit this in about 3-4 hours unless I get comments. --

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-17 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: * The UI differs from what was agreed on here: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4d1dcf5a.7070...@enterprisedb.com. Patch to add server_name parameter, plus mechanism to send info from standby to master. While doing that,

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I added a XLogWalRcvSendReply() call into XLogWalRcvFlush() so that

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-16 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 16.02.2011 17:36, Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I added a

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 17:40 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 16.02.2011 17:36, Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 17:40 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 16.02.2011 17:36, Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Fujii

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-16 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 16.02.2011 19:29, Robert Haas wrote: Actually, on further reflection, I'm not even sure why we bother with the fsync. It seems like a useful safeguard but I'm not seeing how we can get to that point without having fsync'd everything anyway. Am I missing something? WalRcvDie() is called on

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: On 16.02.2011 19:29, Robert Haas wrote: Actually, on further reflection, I'm not even sure why we bother with the fsync.  It seems like a useful safeguard but I'm not seeing how we can get to that

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-15 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 01:45 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Here's the latest patch for sync rep. I was looking at this code and found something in SyncRepWaitOnQueue we declare a timeout variable that is a long and

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I committed the patch with those changes, and some minor comment tweaks and other kibitzing. +            * 'd' means a

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I committed the patch with those changes, and some

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I added a XLogWalRcvSendReply() call into XLogWalRcvFlush() so that it also sends a status update every time the WAL is

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-15 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I added a XLogWalRcvSendReply() call into

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-14 Thread Fujii Masao
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I committed the patch with those changes, and some minor comment tweaks and other kibitzing. I have another comment: The

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-14 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Here's the latest patch for sync rep. I was looking at this code and found something in SyncRepWaitOnQueue we declare a timeout variable that is a long and another that is a boolean (this last one in the else part of the

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-13 Thread Fujii Masao
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I committed the patch with those changes, and some minor comment tweaks and other kibitzing. +* 'd' means a standby reply wrapped in a COPY BOTH packet. +*/ Typo: s/COPY

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-13 Thread Fujii Masao
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I added a XLogWalRcvSendReply() call into XLogWalRcvFlush() so that it also sends a status update every time the WAL is flushed. If the walreceiver is busy receiving and flushing, that would happen

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 08.02.2011 20:53, Robert Haas wrote: That having been said, there is at least one part of this patch which looks to be in pretty good shape and seems independently useful regardless of what happens to the rest of it, and that is the code that sends replies from the standby back to the

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: That having been said, there is at least one part of this patch which looks to be in pretty good shape and seems independently useful regardless of what happens to the rest of it, and that is the code that sends replies

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On mån, 2011-02-07 at 12:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one week, ... Really? I thought the idea for the last CF of a development cycle was

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 02/09/2011 07:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On mån, 2011-02-07 at 12:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com writes: ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one week, ... Really? I thought the

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: On 02/09/2011 07:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: The previous three commit fests contained about 50 patches each and lasted one month each. The current commit fest contains about 100 patches, so it shouldn't be surprising that it will take about 2

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: On 02/09/2011 07:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: The previous three commit fests contained about 50 patches each and lasted one month each.  The current commit fest contains about 100

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: Moreover, under the current process, it is apparent that reviewing is the bottleneck.  More code gets written than gets reviewed.  By insisting on the current schedule, we would just push the growing review backlog ahead

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Feb 9, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: There are certainly some patches in this CommitFest that need more attention than that, and that probably need the attention of a senior community member. Jeff's range types patch and Alvaro's key lock patch are two of those. And I would be

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:09 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote: Frankly, I think you should surrender some of those 14 and cajole some other folks to take on more. Happily... only trouble is, I suck at cajoling. Even my begging is distinctly sub-par. Plase? -- Robert

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote: Frankly, I think you should surrender some of those 14 and cajole some other folks to take on more. Happily... only trouble is, I suck at cajoling. Even my begging is distinctly sub-par. Plase? Try this: “Listen up, bitches!

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread Stephen Frost
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:09 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote: Frankly, I think you should surrender some of those 14 and cajole some other folks to take on more. Happily... only trouble is, I suck at cajoling. Even my begging

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:32 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote: On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote: Frankly, I think you should surrender some of those 14 and cajole some other folks to take on more. Happily...  only trouble is, I suck at cajoling.  Even my begging

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote: “Listen up, bitches! I'm tired of Tom and me having to do all the work. All of you who submitted patches need to review some other patches! If you haven't submitted a review for someone else's patch by commitfest end, your patches will be

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:01 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote: ha ha! Alas, I'm completely overcommitted at this point. Been having a hard time making time for PGXN. I've been tracking the extension stuff closely, though, as you can imagine. It's a common problem, and of course

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-09 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: I also agree with the general idea of trying to break it into smaller parts - even if they only provide small parts each on it's own. That also

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 11:50 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: I just spoke to my manager at EnterpriseDB and he cleared my schedule for the next two days to work on this.  So I'll go hack on this now. I haven't read the patch

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Here's the latest patch for sync rep. Here is a rebased version of this patch which applies to head of the master branch.  I haven't tested it yet

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-08 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 19:53, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Here's the latest patch for sync rep. Here is a rebased version of this

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: I would usually not worry about the bandwidth, really, I'd be more worried about potentially increasing latency somewhere. The time to read and write the socket doesn't seem like it should be significant, unless the

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-08 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 13:53 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: That having been said, there is at least one part of this patch which looks to be in pretty good shape and seems independently useful regardless of what happens to the rest of it, and that is the code that sends replies from the standby

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Time's running short - do you have an updated patch? This patch hasn't been updated in more than three weeks. I assume this should now be marked Returned with Feedback, and we'll revisit synchronous replication for 9.2?

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Bruce Momjian
Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Time's running short - do you have an updated patch? This patch hasn't been updated in more than three weeks. I assume this should now be marked Returned with Feedback, and we'll revisit

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 09:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Time's running short - do you have an updated patch? This patch hasn't been updated in more than three weeks. I assume this should now be marked Returned with

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 09:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Time's running short - do you have an updated patch? This patch hasn't been updated in

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 09:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Time's running

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one week, ... Really? I thought the idea for the last CF of a development cycle was that it kept going till we'd dealt with everything. Arbitrarily rejecting stuff we haven't dealt with doesn't seem fair.

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 12:39 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: I just spoke to my manager at EnterpriseDB and he cleared my schedule for the next two days to work on this. So I'll go hack on this now. I haven't read the patch yet so I don't know for sure how quite I'll be able to get up to speed on

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one week, ... Really?  I thought the idea for the last CF of a development cycle was that it kept going till we'd dealt with everything.  

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 12:39 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: I just spoke to my manager at EnterpriseDB and he cleared my schedule for the next two days to work on this.  So I'll go hack on this now. I haven't read the patch

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: done in the time available is another thing entirely. I do NOT want to still be working on the items for this CommitFest in June - that's about when I'd like to be releasing beta3. Except that's not how we work here. You want to change that with

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 17:59 +, Simon Riggs wrote: On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 12:39 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: I just spoke to my manager at EnterpriseDB and he cleared my schedule for the next two days to work on this. So I'll go hack on this now. I haven't read the patch yet so I don't

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: done in the time available is another thing entirely.  I do NOT want to still be working on the items for this CommitFest in June - that's about when I'd like to be

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Josh Berkus
I just spoke to my manager at EnterpriseDB and he cleared my schedule for the next two days to work on this. So I'll go hack on this now. I haven't read the patch yet so I don't know for sure how quite I'll be able to get up to speed on it, so if someone who is more familiar with this code

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Dave Page
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one week, ... Really?  I thought the idea for the last CF of a

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Kevin Grittner
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one week, ... Really? I thought the idea for the last

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Dave Page
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I'm not trying to bypass compromising, and I don't know what makes you think otherwise. I am trying to ensure that the CommitFest wraps up Well, I'm too tired to allow myself posting such comments, sorry to have left the previous mail through. More

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Josh Berkus
On 2/7/11 11:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote: However, I don't want to prolong the CommitFest indefinitely in the face of patches that the authors are not actively working on or can't finish in the time available, or where there is no consensus that the proposed change is what we want. I believe

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote: Rejecting stuff because we haven't gotten round to dealing with it in such a short period of time is a damn good way to limit the number of contributions we get. I don't believe we've agreed at any point that the last

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 12:24 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: +1. I, for one, would vote against extending beta if Sync Rep isn't ready yet. There's plenty of other big features in 9.1, and Sync Rep will benefit from having additional development time given the number of major spec points we only

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Dave Page
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: You're moving the bar.  It DOES say that the CommitFest will end on February 15th.  Now, if we want to have a discussion about changing that, let's have that discussion (perhaps on a thread where the subject has something

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I'm not trying to bypass compromising, and I don't know what makes you think otherwise.  I am trying to ensure that the CommitFest wraps up Well, I'm too tired to allow

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: You're moving the bar.  It DOES say that the CommitFest will end on February 15th.  Now, if we want to have a discussion about changing that, let's have

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Dave Page
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: You're moving the bar.  It DOES say that the CommitFest will end on February

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Chris Browne
dp...@pgadmin.org (Dave Page) writes: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one week, ... Really?  I

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 15:25 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: I would certainly appreciate it if everyone could at least credit me with acting in good faith. I think you are, if that helps. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-02-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 11:50 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: I just spoke to my manager at EnterpriseDB and he cleared my schedule for the next two days to work on this. So I'll go hack on this now. I haven't read the patch yet so I don't know for sure how quite I'll be able to get up to speed

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 13:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: One idea might be to wait both before and after commit.  If allow_standalone_primary is off, and a commit is attempted, we check whether there's a slave connected,

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-22 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 13:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: One idea might be to wait both before and after commit. If allow_standalone_primary is off, and a commit is attempted, we check whether there's a slave connected, and if not, wait for one to connect. Then, we write and sync the commit

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
(grr, I wrote this on Monday already, but just found it in my drafts folder, unsent) On 15.01.2011 23:40, Simon Riggs wrote: Here's the latest patch for sync rep. From here, I will be developing the patch further on public git repository towards commit. My expectation is that commit is at

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: (grr, I wrote this on Monday already, but just found it in my drafts folder, unsent) No worries, thanks for commenting. Thanks! Some quick observations after first read-through: * The docs for synchronous_replication still claim

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: * it seems like overkill to not let clients to even connect when allow_standalone_primary=off and no synchronous standbys are available. What if you just want to run a read-only query? For what it's

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 14:24, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: * it seems like overkill to not let clients to even connect when allow_standalone_primary=off and no synchronous standbys are available. What if you just want to

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 21.01.2011 15:24, Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: * it seems like overkill to not let clients to even connect when allow_standalone_primary=off and no synchronous standbys are available. What if you just want to run a read-only query? That's

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: It's also possible that most of your transactions in fact do set synchronous_replication=off, and only a few actually do synchronous replication. It would be pretty bad to not allow connections in

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 17:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 21.01.2011 15:24, Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: * it seems like overkill to not let clients to even connect when allow_standalone_primary=off and no synchronous standbys are

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:34 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 14:24, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: * it seems like overkill to not let clients to even connect when allow_standalone_primary=off and no

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Aidan Van Dyk
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: We all think our own proposed options are the only reasonable thing, but that helps us not at all in moving forwards. I've put much time into delivering options many other people want, so there is a range of function.

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote: On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: We all think our own proposed options are the only reasonable thing, but that helps us not at all in moving forwards. I've put much time into

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote: When no sync slave is connected, yes, I want to stop things hard. What you're proposing is to fail things earlier than absolutely necessary (when they try to XLOG, rather than at

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Aidan Van Dyk
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote: When no sync slave is connected, yes, I want to stop things hard. What you're proposing is to fail things

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote: On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote: When no sync slave is connected, yes, I

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Aidan Van Dyk
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Again, I'm trying to stop forward progress as soon as possible when a sync slave isn't replicating.  And I'ld like clients to fail with errors sooner (hopefully they get to the commit point) rather than accumulate the

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote: Yup.  And I'm OK with that.  In my case, it would be much better to have a few quick failures, which can complete automatically a few seconds later then to have a big buildup of transactions to re-verify by hand upon

Re: [HACKERS] Sync Rep for 2011CF1

2011-01-15 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 22:40, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Here's the latest patch for sync rep. From here, I will be developing the patch further on public git repository towards commit. My expectation is that commit is at least 2 That's great. Just one tiny detail - which