On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 07:08:28PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 11:19 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> > I think there's a race condition in the way LogCurrentRunningXacts() is
> > called at the end of checkpoint. This can happen in the master:
> >
> > 1. Checkpoint st
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 11:19 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I think there's a race condition in the way LogCurrentRunningXacts() is
> called at the end of checkpoint. This can happen in the master:
>
> 1. Checkpoint starts
> 2. Transaction 123 begins, and does some updates
> 3. Checkpoint end
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Heikki
Linnakangas wrote:
When that is replayed, ProcArrayUpdateTransactions() will zap the
unobserved xids array with the list that includes XID 123, even though
we already saw a commit record for it.
>>
>> I looked at this a little more. I'm wonder
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I think there's a race condition in the way LogCurrentRunningXacts() is
>>> called at the end of checkpoint. This can happen in the master:
>>>
>>> 1. Checkpoint starts
>>> 2. Transaction 123 begins, and does some updates
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Heikki
Linnakangas wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I had some review comments
>> I was hoping to get responses to, in the section beginning with "A few
>> other comments based on a preliminary reading of this patch":
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas wrote:
> I had some review comments
> I was hoping to get responses to, in the section beginning with "A few
> other comments based on a preliminary reading of this patch":
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg00854.php
Having read the patch now, here's a one is
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 10:20 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Simon: you have people offering to help with the patch. Offering to
> > help *right now*. Might I suggest that you establish a GIT branch for
> > Hot Standby so that more people can collaborate? Working on it u
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:15:51PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 10:20 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Simon: you have people offering to help with the patch. Offering
> > to help *right now*. Might I suggest that you establish a GIT
> > branch for Hot Standby so that more p
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 10:20 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Simon: you have people offering to help with the patch. Offering to
> help *right now*. Might I suggest that you establish a GIT branch for
> Hot Standby so that more people can collaborate? Working on it until
> you get it "perfect" off
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 10:20 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> Can we stop arguing about a patch everyone wants?
>
> Simon: you have people offering to help with the patch. Offering to
> help *right now*. Might I suggest that you establish a GIT branch for
> Hot Standby so that more people c
All,
Can we stop arguing about a patch everyone wants?
Simon: you have people offering to help with the patch. Offering to
help *right now*. Might I suggest that you establish a GIT branch for
Hot Standby so that more people can collaborate? Working on it until
you get it "perfect" offsite do
On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 22:15 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I've said very clearly that I am working on this and it's fairly
> > laughable to suggest that anybody thought I wasn't. What more should I
> > do to prove something is "active" if you won
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I've said very clearly that I am working on this and it's fairly
> laughable to suggest that anybody thought I wasn't. What more should I
> do to prove something is "active" if you won't accept my clearly spoken
> word? How did you decide I was i
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 13:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not sure why you're stirring this up again.
> > >
>
> > You stated:
> >
> > - It's going to be very confusing if people submit their own versions of
> > - it. So now we have mine,
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 13:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure why you're stirring this up again.
> >
> You stated:
>
> - It's going to be very confusing if people submit their own versions of
> - it. So now we have mine, Heikki's and Robert's. I'd like this t
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I'm working on HS; I've said so clearly and say it again now. To my
> knowledge, no other Postgres project has committed to a timetable for
> delivery, so I'm not clear why you think one should have been given
> here, or why the absence of such a
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 22:02 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think it would also be fair to point out that you keep saying that
> you're going to deliver this patch for 8.5, but you haven't provided
> any real timetable as to when you're going to start working on it or
> when it'll be completed. Be
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> You are right you don't have to justify anything, but neither can you
> claim ownership of the patch/feature and complain that others are
> working on it too. This is a community project --- if you want your
> patches to remain your property,
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 00:02 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > Also, to my knowledge, nobody has really looked through the results to
> > > see if they are any good, so the success of the endeavor remains in
> > > doubt from my point of view. That's a bit of a shame becau
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 00:02 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Also, to my knowledge, nobody has really looked through the results to
> > see if they are any good, so the success of the endeavor remains in
> > doubt from my point of view. That's a bit of a shame because I am
> > interested in putti
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Well, Simon stated that your version should now be used as the most
> recent one, so I would call that a success.
Fair enough, but it still needs more work. I had some review comments
I was hoping to get responses to, in the section beginnin
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Third, Robert, you should have communicated to the list that you were
> going to work on the patch, so that there would not be duplicate effort
> if someone else was also working on it. As I understood it, Heikki was
> in control of the patch
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Third, Robert, you should have communicated to the list that you were
> > going to work on the patch, so that there would not be duplicate effort
> > if someone else was also working on it. ?As I understood it, Heikki wa
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 17:27 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 21:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > >
>
> > It's going to be very confusing if people submit their own versions of
> > it. So now we have mine, Heikki's and Robert's. I'd like this to stop
> >
On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 17:27 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 21:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> It's going to be very confusing if people submit their own versions of
> it. So now we have mine, Heikki's and Robert's. I'd like this to stop
> please, have a little faith and a li
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 21:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> 1. Downloaded norecoveryprocs-1.patch from
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49a64d73.6090...@enterprisedb.com
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4a4dbf8f.8040...@enterprisedb.com
I have to confess that I had no idea tha
26 matches
Mail list logo
