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
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
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.
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
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;
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 ;)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo