On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> [fixes]
>
> Committed, thanks for the patch.
>
Visibly I missed one/two things when hacking out this stuff. Thanks for the
extra cleanup and the commit.
--
Michael
On 2015-08-15 21:16:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Well, this has taken less time than I thought:
> =# CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT toto PHYSICAL;
> slot_name | consistent_point | snapshot_name | output_plugin
> ---+--+---+---
> toto | 0/0
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-08-17 15:22:44 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 8/14/15 3:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > I'd name it RESERVE_WAL.
>
>> Why "reserve"? > Isn't it "preserve"?
>
> Hm. I honestly do not know. I was thinking of ticket reservations..
On 2015-08-17 15:22:44 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 8/14/15 3:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'd name it RESERVE_WAL.
> Why "reserve"? > Isn't it "preserve"?
Hm. I honestly do not know. I was thinking of ticket reservations...
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@post
On 8/14/15 3:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'd name it RESERVE_WAL. My feeling is that the options for the logical
> case are geared towards the output plugin, not the walsender. I think
> it'd be confusing to use (slot_options) differently for physical slots.
Why "reserve"? Isn't it "preserve"?
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-08-14 16:44:44 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Commit 6fcd8851, which is the result of this thread, is not touching
>> the replication protocol at all. This looks like an oversight to me:
>> we should be a maximum consistent between
On 2015-08-14 11:09:38 +0200, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
> Yes, but the options list you pass to START_REPLICATION ... LOGICAL, not to
> CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT.
I know, but we might want to extend that at some point.
- Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-08-14 16:44:44 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Commit 6fcd8851, which is the result of this thread, is not touching
> > the replication protocol at all. This looks like an oversight to me:
> > we should be a maximum consistent betw
On 2015-08-14 16:44:44 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Commit 6fcd8851, which is the result of this thread, is not touching
> the replication protocol at all. This looks like an oversight to me:
> we should be a maximum consistent between the SQL interface and the
> replication protocol if possible
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-08-11 15:59:59 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>> In your version, I don't see a comment that refers to the fact that it
>> works on the currently active (global variable) slot.
>
> Hm?
>
> /*
> * Reserve WAL for the currently active slo
On 2015-08-11 15:59:59 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> In your version, I don't see a comment that refers to the fact that it
> works on the currently active (global variable) slot.
Hm?
/*
* Reserve WAL for the currently active slot.
*
* Compute and set restart_lsn in a manner that's appropriate
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-07-07 09:42:54 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> > /*
> > + * Grab and save an LSN value to prevent WAL recycling past that point.
> > + */
> > +void
> > +ReplicationSlotRegisterRestartLSN()
> > +{
>
> Didn't like that description and f
On 2015-07-07 09:42:54 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> --- a/src/backend/replication/slot.c
> +++ b/src/backend/replication/slot.c
> @@ -40,10 +40,10 @@
> #include
>
> #include "access/transam.h"
> +#include "access/xlog_internal.h"
> #include "common/string.h"
> #include "miscadmin.h"
> #inc
On 2015-07-07 09:42:54 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On a side note, I see that the pg_create_*_replication_slot() functions do
> not behave transactionally; that is, rolling back a transaction does not
> undo the slot creation.
It can't, because otherwise you couldn't run them on a standby.
> Sh
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-07-07 06:41:55 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> > There seems to be a misplaced not operator ! in that if statement, as
> > well. That sucks :( The MacOS gcc binary is actually clang, and its
> output
> > is too noisy [1], which is prob
On 2015-07-07 06:41:55 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> There seems to be a misplaced not operator ! in that if statement, as
> well. That sucks :( The MacOS gcc binary is actually clang, and its output
> is too noisy [1], which is probably why I might have missed warning if any.
Which version of cl
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-06-10 13:13:41 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * Log an xid snapshot for logical replication.
> It's not needed for
> > + * physical slots as it is done in BGWri
On 2015-06-10 13:13:41 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> /*
> + * Grab and save an LSN value to prevent WAL recycling past that point.
> + */
> +void
> +ReplicationSlotRegisterRestartLSN()
> +{
> + ReplicationSlot *slot = MyReplicationSlot;
> +
> + Assert(slot != NULL);
> + Assert(slot->da
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>
> I am in the process of writing up a doc patch, and will submit that as
> well in a short while.
>
Please find attached the patch with the doc update.
Best regards,
--
Gurjeet Singh http://gurjeet.singh.im/
physical_repl_slot_activate_
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-06-10 08:24:23 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > > That doesn't look right to me. Why is this code logging a standby
> > > snapshot for physical slots?
> > >
> >
> > This is
On 2015-06-10 08:24:23 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > That doesn't look right to me. Why is this code logging a standby
> > snapshot for physical slots?
> >
>
> This is the new function I referred to above. The logging of the snapshot
> is
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-06-10 08:00:28 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>
> > pg_create_logical_replication_slot() prevents LSN from being
> > recycled that by looping (worst case 2 times) until there's no
> > conflict with the checkpointer recycling the segment
On 2015-06-10 08:00:28 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> Attached is the patch that takes the former approach (initialize
> restart_lsn when the slot is created).
If it's an option that's imo a sane approach.
> pg_create_logical_replication_slot() prevents LSN from being
> recycled that by looping (w
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > Was there any consideration for initializing restart_lsn to the latest
> > WAL write pointer when a slot is created? Or for allowing an optional
> > parameter in pg_create_(physical|logical)_replication_slot() for
> > specifying the resta
Hi,
On 2015-05-06 00:42:14 +, Duran, Danilo wrote:
> I am looking to better understand the thought behind a replication
> slot's restart_lsn initialization. Currently in 9.4 and master, a
> replication slot's restart_lsn is set to InvalidXLogRecPtr and will
> only start tracking restart_lsn on
25 matches
Mail list logo
