On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05/29/2014 07:39 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> It also implicitly tested the xlog parallel write slots thing, as that is
>> common code to all recovery.
>>
>
> During development, I hit a lot of bugs in that patch by setting
> wal_buffe
Hi Jeff,
On 2014-05-29 09:39:56 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> What features in 9.4 need more beta testing for recovery?
Another thing I'd like to add to the list is wal_level=logical. Not such
much the logical decoding side, but that we haven't screwed up normal
crash recovery/wal replay.
> I also
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> On 2014-06-02 09:03:25 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Amit Kapila
> > > I think this is useful information and can be even included in core
> > > code.
>
> I'd like to include something, but I think those are a
Jeff Janes wrote:
> GNU make does not realize that pg_xlogdump depends
> on src/backend/access/rmgrdesc/heapdesc.c. (I don't know how or why it has
> that dependency, but changes did not take effect with a simple "make
> install") Is that a known issue? Is there someway to fix it?
Uh, you're ri
Hi,
On 2014-06-02 10:15:19 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > > Also, pg_xlogdump -p insists on being given a start position. I
> > would
> > > be nice if it could just find the first file in the given directory. Any
> > > reason it can't do that, other than just that no one implemented it yet?
>
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2014-06-02 09:03:25 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >
> > GNU make does not realize that pg_xlogdump depends
> > on src/backend/access/rmgrdesc/heapdesc.c. (I don't know how or why it
> has
> > that dependency, but changes did not take
Hi,
On 2014-06-02 09:03:25 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Jeff Janes
> > wrote:
> >
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Jeff Janes
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > What features in 9.4 need more beta testing for recovery?
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Jeff Janes
wrote:
>> >
>> > What features in 9.4 need more beta testing for recovery?
>>
>> Another feature which have interaction with recovery is reduce
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:39:56AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I've applied my partial-write testing harness to several scenarios in 9.4.
> So far its found a recovery bug for gin indexes, a recovery bug for btree,
> a vacuum bug for btree indexes (with foreign keys, but that is not relevant
> to t
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >
> > What features in 9.4 need more beta testing for recovery?
>
> Another feature which have interaction with recovery is reduced WAL
> for Update operation:
>
> http://www.postgresql.or
On 05/29/2014 07:39 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
It also implicitly tested the xlog parallel write slots thing, as that is
common code to all recovery.
During development, I hit a lot of bugs in that patch by setting
wal_buffers to 32kb (the minimum). Causes more backends to wait for each
other, exp
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> What features in 9.4 need more beta testing for recovery?
Another feature which have interaction with recovery is reduced WAL
for Update operation:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1wnqjm-0003cz...@gemulon.postgresql.org
Commit: a3115f
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Jeff Janes wrote:
>> One thing is that I want to find a way to drive multixact in fast forward,
>> so that the freezing cycle gets a good workout. Currently I can't consume
>> enough of them to make them wrap around within the time frame of a test.
> IIRC I lobotomized it
On 05/29/2014 09:39 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> I've applied my partial-write testing harness to several scenarios in
> 9.4. So far its found a recovery bug for gin indexes, a recovery bug
> for btree, a vacuum bug for btree indexes (with foreign keys, but that
> is not relevant to the bug), and no
Jeff Janes wrote:
> One thing is that I want to find a way to drive multixact in fast forward,
> so that the freezing cycle gets a good workout. Currently I can't consume
> enough of them to make them wrap around within the time frame of a test.
IIRC I lobotomized it up by removing the XLogInsert
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:39:56AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> What features in 9.4 need more beta testing for recovery?
>
> I've applied my partial-write testing harness to several scenarios in 9.4. So
> far its found a recovery bug for gin indexes, a recovery bug for btree, a
> vacuum bug for bt
What features in 9.4 need more beta testing for recovery?
I've applied my partial-write testing harness to several scenarios in 9.4.
So far its found a recovery bug for gin indexes, a recovery bug for btree,
a vacuum bug for btree indexes (with foreign keys, but that is not relevant
to the bug),
18 matches
Mail list logo
