On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Can you explain how to recreate the problem that this patch fixes?
1. Configure and start the primary server.
2. Configure the standby server.
3. Remove all of the WAL files in pg_xlog of the standby.
4. Start the standby.
5. Request smart sh
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> I'm not willing to investigate this further myself at this stage. This
>>> looks like risk for little benefit.
>>
>> That's kind of w
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I'm not willing to investigate this further myself at this stage. This
>> looks like risk for little benefit.
>
> That's kind of what I figured. I'll see about fixing up Fujii-san's
> patch
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I'm not willing to investigate this further myself at this stage. This
> looks like risk for little benefit.
That's kind of what I figured. I'll see about fixing up Fujii-san's
patch and documenting the behavior; but it won't happen before the
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 06:48 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > >From what I have seen, the comment about PM_WAIT_BACKENDS is
> >>
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >From what I have seen, the comment about PM_WAIT_BACKENDS is incorrect.
> "backends might be waiting for the WAL record tha
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> > >From what I have seen, the comment about PM_WAIT_BACKENDS is incorrect.
>>> > "backends might be waiting for the WAL record that conflicts with their
>>> > queries to be replayed". Rec
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > >From what I have seen, the comment about PM_WAIT_BACKENDS is incorrect.
>> > "backends might be waiting for the WAL record that conflicts with their
>> > queries to be replayed". Recovery sometimes waits for backends, but
>> > backends neve
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Please add some docs that a) explains what the patch does and b) notes
> any changes from behaviour in previous releases. ISTM this is a major
> change in behaviour.
I guess I see this a little bit differently. If you do a smart
shutdown on 8
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 17:48 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > Please add some docs that a) explains what the patch does and b) notes
>> > any changes from behaviour in previous releases. ISTM
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 17:48 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Please add some docs that a) explains what the patch does and b) notes
> > any changes from behaviour in previous releases. ISTM this is a major
> > change in behaviour.
>
> How about a
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Please add some docs that a) explains what the patch does and b) notes
> any changes from behaviour in previous releases. ISTM this is a major
> change in behaviour.
How about adding the following description into "17.5. Shutting Down
the Serv
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 10:48 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> I rebased the patch to HEAD. Is the patch still required for 9.0?
> >> If not, I'd remove the open item of the smart shutdown du
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> I rebased the patch to HEAD. Is the patch still required for 9.0?
>>> If not, I'd remove the open item of the smart shutdown during
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> I rebased the patch to HEAD. Is the patch still required for 9.0?
>> If not, I'd remove the open item of the smart shutdown during
>> recovery.
>
> I am by no means an expert on this area
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I rebased the patch to HEAD. Is the patch still required for 9.0?
> If not, I'd remove the open item of the smart shutdown during
> recovery.
I am by no means an expert on this area of the code, but in the
interest of moving things along I rev
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> HOWEVER, I do believe this is an issue we could live with for 9.0 if
>>> it's going to lead to a whole lot of additional debugging of SR. But if
>>> it's an easy fix, it'll avoid a lot
17 matches
Mail list logo
