Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-25 Thread Fujii Masao
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On 1/3/13 12:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: Any particular reason? It

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-25 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-01-26 02:21:00 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On 1/3/13 12:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Magnus Hagander

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-25 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 1/25/13 12:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-01-26 02:21:00 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: The process which deletes the old WAL files is the checkpointer. The checkpointer can access to the shared memory and know the location of the WAL record which has been already replicated to the standby.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-24 Thread Peter Eisentraut
After reviewing this, it appears to me that this is really just a very verbose version of archive_command = 'sleep $initialsleep; while test $(psql -AtX -c select pg_xlogfile_name(something) $$%f$$ collate \C\;) = t; sleep $sleep; done' I think it might be better to just document this as an

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-24 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: After reviewing this, it appears to me that this is really just a very verbose version of archive_command = 'sleep $initialsleep; while test $(psql -AtX -c select pg_xlogfile_name(something) $$%f$$ collate \C\;) = t;

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-24 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: I think it might be better to just document this as an example. I don't quite see the overhead of maintaining another tool justified. Well, obviously I don't entirely agree ;)

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-24 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: I think it might be better to just document this as an example. I don't quite see the overhead of

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Mostly that it seems

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-14 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On 1/3/13 12:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: Any particular reason? It goes

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Mostly that it seems like a hack, and I suspect we may come up with a better way to do this in the future. Do you have the specs of such better way? Would it be a problem

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-14 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Mostly that it seems like a hack, and I suspect we may come up with a better way to do this in

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-05 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On 1/3/13 12:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: Any particular reason? It goes pretty tightly together with pg_receivexlog, which is why I'd prefer putting

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-05 Thread Phil Sorber
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: So, it turns out the reason I got no feedback on this tool, was that I forgot both to email about and to actually push the code to github :O So this is actually code that's almost half a year old and that I was

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-04 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 1/3/13 12:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: Any particular reason? It goes pretty tightly together with pg_receivexlog, which is why I'd prefer putting it alongside that one. But if you have a good argument against it, I

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-04 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Mostly that it seems like a hack, and I suspect we may come up with a better way to do this in the future. Do you have the specs of such better way? Would it be a problem to have both pg_retainxlog and the new way? -- Dimitri Fontaine

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: So, it turns out the reason I got no feedback on this tool, was that I forgot both to email about and to actually push the code to github :O So this is actually code that's almost half a year old and that I was

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-03 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: So, it turns out the reason I got no feedback on this tool, was that I forgot both to email about and to actually push the code to github :O So

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: Any particular reason? It goes pretty tightly together with pg_receivexlog, which is why I'd prefer putting it alongside that one. But if you have a good argument against it, I can change my mind :) Mostly that it

[HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
So, it turns out the reason I got no feedback on this tool, was that I forgot both to email about and to actually push the code to github :O So this is actually code that's almost half a year old and that I was supposed to submit for the first or second commitfest. Oops. So, the tool and a README

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-01 Thread Hannu Krosing
On 01/01/2013 04:10 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: So, it turns out the reason I got no feedback on this tool, was that I forgot both to email about and to actually push the code to github :O So this is actually code that's almost half a year old and that I was supposed to submit for the first or

Re: [HACKERS] pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

2013-01-01 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: Is this a tool that people would like to see included in the general toolchain? If so, I'll reformat it to work in the general build environment and submit it for the last commitfest. Please do. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr