On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-10-04 14:25:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
And as I am on it, attached is a patch that can be applied to master and
REL9_4_STABLE to rename the --create and --drop to --create-slot and
--drop-slot.
Hi,
On 2014-10-04 15:01:03 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
para
+applicationpg_receivexlog/application can run in one of two
following
+modes, which control physical replication slot:
I don't
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Pushed with these adjustments.
Thanks. The portions changed look fine to me.
--
Michael
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
para
+applicationpg_receivexlog/application can run in one of two
following
+modes, which control physical replication slot:
I don't think that's good enough. There's also the important mode where
On 2014-10-04 09:24:07 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-10-03 14:02:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I do wonder whether
On 2014-10-04 14:25:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-10-03 14:02:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Any opinion on whether we should accept both --create and --create-slot
or only the latter? Accepting both would get rid of problems due to
potential usages of the old syntax - and it's easier to type...
My vote goes
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Any opinion on whether we should accept both --create and --create-slot
or only the latter? Accepting both would get rid of problems due
On 2014-10-03 10:30:19 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I pushed the first part.
Thanks. Attached is a rebased version of patch 2, implementing the actual
feature. One thing I noticed with more testing is that if
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I do wonder whether --create/--drop aren't somewhat wierd for
pg_receivexlog. It's not that clear what it means. It'd be ugly, but we
could rename them --create-slot/drop-slot.
+1 on doing it, -1 on it being ugly.
--
On 2014-10-03 14:02:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I do wonder whether --create/--drop aren't somewhat wierd for
pg_receivexlog. It's not that clear what it means. It'd be ugly, but we
could rename them
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-10-03 14:02:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I do wonder whether --create/--drop aren't somewhat wierd for
pg_receivexlog. It's not
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-10-03 14:02:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I pushed the first part.
Thanks. Attached is a rebased version of patch 2, implementing the actual
feature. One thing I noticed with more testing is that if --create is used
and that the destination folder does not
Hi,
I've split and edited patch 0001:
0001) Old WIP patch for pg_recvlogical tests. Useful for easier development.
0002) Copy editing that should be in 9.4
0003) Rebased patches of yours
0004) My changes to 0003 besides the rebase. This'll be squashed, but I
thought it might be interesting
Thanks!
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
0001) Old WIP patch for pg_recvlogical tests. Useful for easier
development.
From where is this patch? Is it some rest from the time when pg_recvlogical
was developed?
0002) Copy editing that should be in
On 2014-10-01 21:54:56 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Thanks!
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
0001) Old WIP patch for pg_recvlogical tests. Useful for easier
development.
From where is this patch? Is it some rest from the time when
Andres Freund wrote:
From d667f7a63cd62733d88ec5b7228dfd5d7136b9d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michael Paquier mich...@otacoo.com
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 20:48:43 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] Refactoring of pg_basebackup utilities
Code duplication is reduced with the introduction of new
On 2014-10-01 11:21:12 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
From d667f7a63cd62733d88ec5b7228dfd5d7136b9d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michael Paquier mich...@otacoo.com
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 20:48:43 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] Refactoring of pg_basebackup utilities
Hi,
I pushed the first part.
On 2014-10-01 21:54:56 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
0001) Old WIP patch for pg_recvlogical tests. Useful for easier
development.
From where is this patch? Is it some rest from the
On 10/01/2014 08:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-01 21:54:56 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Thanks!
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
0001) Old WIP patch for pg_recvlogical tests. Useful for easier
development.
From where is this patch? Is it
On 10/01/2014 01:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-01 13:17:17 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
-static void StreamLog();
+static void StreamLogicalLog();
Not related at all to those patches, but for correctness it is better to
add a declaration (void).
Agreed.
Except those small things the
On 2014-10-01 13:22:53 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 10/01/2014 01:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-01 13:17:17 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
-static void StreamLog();
+static void StreamLogicalLog();
Not related at all to those patches, but for correctness it is better to
add a declaration
On 10/01/2014 01:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-01 13:22:53 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 10/01/2014 01:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-01 13:17:17 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
-static void StreamLog();
+static void StreamLogicalLog();
Not related at all to those patches, but for
On 2014-09-22 15:40:41 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Updated patches attached.
These are patches about pg_dump. I don't think these were the ones you
wanted to attach... :)
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development,
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-09-22 15:40:41 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Updated patches attached.
These are patches about pg_dump. I don't think these were the ones you
wanted to attach... :)
Wah, sorry (bakabakashii...). Here they
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
3.
I find existing comments okay, is there a need to
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
3.
I find existing comments okay, is there a need to change
in this case? Part of the new comment mentions
obtaining start LSN
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
New patches taking into account all those comments are attached.
I have looked into refactoring related patch and would like
to share my observations with you:
1.
+ * Run IDENTIFY_SYSTEM through a given
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
I have looked into refactoring related patch and would like
to share my observations with you:
Thanks! Useful input is always welcome.
1.
+ * Run IDENTIFY_SYSTEM through a given connection and give back to caller
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Do we really want those Asserts? There is not a single Assert in
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Do we really want those Asserts? There is not a single Assert in
bin/pg_basebackup today - as is the case for most things in bin/. We
typically
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Do we really want those Asserts? There is not a single Assert in
bin/pg_basebackup today - as is the case for most things in bin/. We
typically use regular if statements for things that can happen, and
just ignore the
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
As this is a number of patches rolled into one - do you happen to keep
them separate in your local repo? If so can you send them as separate
ones (refactor identify_system should be quite unrelated to supporting
On 2014-09-01 20:58:29 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
As this is a number of patches rolled into one - do you happen to keep
them separate in your local repo? If so can you send them as separate
ones (refactor
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Fujii Masao
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
- IDENTIFY_SYSTEM checks were incorrect (even in HEAD).
On 2014-08-18 14:38:06 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
- IDENTIFY_SYSTEM checks were incorrect (even in HEAD). The following
check was done but in 9.4 this command returns 4 fields:
(PQntuples(res) != 1 || PQnfields(res) 3)
Which is correct. We don't want to error out in the case where 3
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-08-18 14:38:06 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
- IDENTIFY_SYSTEM checks were incorrect (even in HEAD). The following
check was done but in 9.4 this command returns 4 fields:
(PQntuples(res) != 1 ||
On 2014-08-19 18:02:32 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-08-18 14:38:06 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
- IDENTIFY_SYSTEM checks were incorrect (even in HEAD). The following
check was done but in 9.4 this command
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-08-19 18:02:32 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-08-18 14:38:06 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
- IDENTIFY_SYSTEM checks were
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your review.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:56 AM, furu...@pm.nttdata.co.jp wrote:
At consistency with pg_recvlogical,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your review.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:56
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
- IDENTIFY_SYSTEM checks were incorrect (even in HEAD). The following
check was done but in 9.4 this command returns 4 fields:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
And now looking at your patch there is additional
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your review.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:56 AM, furu...@pm.nttdata.co.jp wrote:
At consistency with pg_recvlogical, do you think about --start?
I did not add that for the sake of
Actually I came up with the same need as Magnus, but a bit later, so...
Attached is a patch to support physical slot creation and drop in
pg_receivexlog with the addition of new options --create and --drop. It
would be nice to have that in 9.4, but I will not the one deciding that
at the end
Thanks for your review.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:56 AM, furu...@pm.nttdata.co.jp wrote:
At consistency with pg_recvlogical, do you think about --start?
I did not add that for the sake of backward-compatibility as in
pg_recvlogical an action is mandatory. It is not the case now of
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Ok. Do you plan to take care of it? If, I'd be fine with backpatching
it. I'm not likely to get to it right now :(
Actually I came up with the same need as Magnus, but a bit later,
so... Attached is a patch to support
Is there a particular reason why pg_receivexlog only supports using
manually created slots but pg_recvlogical supports creating and
dropping them? Wouldn't it be good for consistency there?
I'm guessing it's related to not being exposed over the replication
protocol? We had a discussion earlier
On 2014-07-11 11:08:48 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there a particular reason why pg_receivexlog only supports using
manually created slots but pg_recvlogical supports creating and
dropping them? Wouldn't it be good for consistency there?
I've added it to recvlogical because logical
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-07-11 11:08:48 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there a particular reason why pg_receivexlog only supports using
manually created slots but pg_recvlogical supports creating and
dropping them? Wouldn't it be
On 2014-07-11 11:18:58 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-07-11 11:08:48 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there a particular reason why pg_receivexlog only supports using
manually created slots but
54 matches
Mail list logo
