Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlogdump follow into the future

2017-01-31 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Patch received feedback at the end of commitfest. > Closed in 2016-11 commitfest with "moved to next CF". > Please feel free to update the status once you submit the updated patch. And the thread has died as well

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlogdump follow into the future

2016-12-01 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > This patch does not have a reviewer, so I've decided to try myself on. > > Disclaimer: although I review quite a lot of code daily, this is my first > review for PostgreSQL. I don't know code very well, and frankly I

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlogdump follow into the future

2016-12-01 Thread Vladimir Rusinov
This patch does not have a reviewer, so I've decided to try myself on. Disclaimer: although I review quite a lot of code daily, this is my first review for PostgreSQL. I don't know code very well, and frankly I don't really know C very well. Hope my effort are not vain and will be helpful to

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlogdump follow into the future

2016-10-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> >> On 2016-07-14 13:46:23 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> > Currently, if you run pg_xlogdump with -f, you have to specify an end >> >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlogdump follow into the future

2016-07-18 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-07-14 13:46:23 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Currently, if you run pg_xlogdump with -f, you have to specify an end > > position in an existing file, or if you don't it will only follow until > the > > end of

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlogdump follow into the future

2016-07-14 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-07-14 13:46:23 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Currently, if you run pg_xlogdump with -f, you have to specify an end > position in an existing file, or if you don't it will only follow until the > end of the current file. That's because specifying a file explicitly says that you only want

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlogdump follow into the future

2016-07-14 Thread Simon Riggs
On 14 July 2016 at 07:46, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Currently, if you run pg_xlogdump with -f, you have to specify an end > position in an existing file, or if you don't it will only follow until the > end of the current file. > > That seems like an oversight - if you specify

[HACKERS] pg_xlogdump follow into the future

2016-07-14 Thread Magnus Hagander
Currently, if you run pg_xlogdump with -f, you have to specify an end position in an existing file, or if you don't it will only follow until the end of the current file. That seems like an oversight - if you specify -f with no end position, it should follow "into the future" for any new files