Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

Am Samstag, den 01.04.2017, 17:29 +0200 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > I've applied a backpatch to 9.4. Prior to that pretty much the entire > patch is a conflict, so it would need a full rewrite. Thanks! Michael -- Michael Banck Projektleiter / Senior Berater Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171 Fax: +49

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Michael Banck > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Am Montag, den 27.02.2017, 16:20 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander: >> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Tom Lane

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > >> >> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Michael Banck > > wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Am Dienstag, den

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > Am Montag, den 27.02.2017, 16:20 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Is there an argument for back-patching this? > > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

Hi, Am Montag, den 27.02.2017, 16:20 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Is there an argument for back-patching this? > > > Seems you were typing that at the same time as we did. > > > I'm considering it, but not

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Michael Banck > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2017, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Robert Haas: >> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On 26 February 2017 at 20:55, Magnus Hagander wrote: > What do others think? Changing the output behaviour of a command isn't something we usually do as a backpatch. This change doesn't affect the default behaviour so probably wouldn't make a difference to the outcome of

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Is there an argument for back-patching this? > I'm considering it, but not swayed in either direction. Should I take your > comment as a vote that we should back-patch it?

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Michael Banck < > michael.ba...@credativ.de> > > wrote: > >> ISTM the consensus is that there should be no output in regular mode, > >> but a

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Michael Banck > wrote: >> ISTM the consensus is that there should be no output in regular mode, >> but a message should be displayed in verbose and progress mode. > Agreed, and applied as

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > Am Sonntag, den 26.02.2017, 21:32 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Michael Banck > > wrote: > > > Agreed, and applied as one patch. Except I

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

Hi, Am Sonntag, den 26.02.2017, 21:32 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Michael Banck > wrote: > Agreed, and applied as one patch. Except I noticed you also fixed a > couple of entries which were missing the progname in the messages --

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2017, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Robert Haas: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > > > I'd rather have a --quiet mode instead. If

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2017, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Robert Haas: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > I'd rather have a --quiet mode instead. If you're running it by hand, > > you're likely to omit the switch, whereas when writing the cron

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > I have my doubts about this actually addressing gitlab-like mistakes, > though, because it's a helluva jump from "It's waiting and not doing > anything," to "We need to remove the datadir." (One of the reasons

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > What about adding a paragraph into pg_basebackup docs, explaining that > with 'fast' it does immediate checkpoint, while with 'spread' it'll wait > for a spread checkpoint. > I agree that a better, and

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On 02/17/2017 08:17 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 2/14/17 5:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> I'd rather have a --quiet mode instead. If you're running it by hand, >>> you're likely to omit the switch, whereas when

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On 2/14/17 5:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I'd rather have a --quiet mode instead. If you're running it by hand, you're likely to omit the switch, whereas when writing the cron job you're going to notice lack of

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Yeah, that's my view as well. I'm all for including it in verbose mode. > > *Iff* we can get a progress indicator through the checkpoint we could > include that in --progress mode. But that's a different patch, of

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I'd rather have a --quiet mode instead. If you're running it by hand, > you're likely to omit the switch, whereas when writing the cron job > you're going to notice lack of switch even before you let the job run >

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > However, outputing this info by default will make it show up in things like > > everybodys cronjobs by default. Right now a successful pg_basebackup run > > will come out with no output at all,

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > However, outputing this info by default will make it show up in things like > everybodys cronjobs by default. Right now a successful pg_basebackup run > will come out with no output at all, which is how most Unix

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > Am Montag, den 13.02.2017, 09:31 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Jim Nasby > > wrote: > > On 2/11/17 4:36 AM, Michael Banck wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

Hi, Am Montag, den 13.02.2017, 09:31 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Jim Nasby > wrote: > On 2/11/17 4:36 AM, Michael Banck wrote: > I guess you're right, I've moved it further down. > There is in

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 2/11/17 4:36 AM, Michael Banck wrote: > >> I guess you're right, I've moved it further down. There is in fact a >> message about the xlog location (unless you switch off wal entirely), >> but having another one

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On 2/11/17 4:36 AM, Michael Banck wrote: I guess you're right, I've moved it further down. There is in fact a message about the xlog location (unless you switch off wal entirely), but having another one right before that mentioning the completed checkpoint sounds ok to me. 1) I don't think

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

Hi, Am Samstag, den 11.02.2017, 11:25 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck: > Am Samstag, den 11.02.2017, 11:07 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > > As for the code, while I haven't tested it, isn't the "checkpoint > > completed" message in the wrong place? Doesn't PQsendQuery() complete > > immediately,

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

Hi, Am Samstag, den 11.02.2017, 11:07 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > As for the code, while I haven't tested it, isn't the "checkpoint > completed" message in the wrong place? Doesn't PQsendQuery() complete > immediately, and the check needs to be put *after* the PQgetResult() > call? I

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > one take-away from the Gitlab Post-Mortem[1] appears to be that after > their secondary lost replication, they were confused about what > pg_basebackup was doing when they tried to rebuild it. It just sat

[HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

Hi, one take-away from the Gitlab Post-Mortem[1] appears to be that after their secondary lost replication, they were confused about what pg_basebackup was doing when they tried to rebuild it. It just sat there and did nothing (even with --verbose), so they assumed something was wrong with either