Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 27.09.2017, 10:10 -0400 schrieb Peter Eisentraut:
> On 9/11/17 03:11, Michael Banck wrote:
> > So my patch only moves the slot creation slightly further forward,
> > AFAICT.
>
> I have committed this patch, along with some associated cleanup.
Thanks!
> > AIUI, wal streaming
On 9/11/17 03:11, Michael Banck wrote:
> So my patch only moves the slot creation slightly further forward,
> AFAICT.
I have committed this patch, along with some associated cleanup.
> AIUI, wal streaming always begins at last checkpoint and from my tests
> the restart_lsn of the created replicat
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 9/12/17 16:39, Michael Banck wrote:
> > We could split up the logic here and create the optional physical
> > replication slot in the main connection and the temporary one in the WAL
> > streamer conn
On 9/12/17 16:39, Michael Banck wrote:
> We could split up the logic here and create the optional physical
> replication slot in the main connection and the temporary one in the WAL
> streamer connection, but this would keep any fragility around for
> (likely more frequently used) temporary replica
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 12.09.2017, 08:53 -0400 schrieb Peter Eisentraut:
> On 9/11/17 03:11, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > Is there a race condition here? The slot is created after the checkpoint
> > > is completed. But you have to start streaming from the LSN where the
> > > checkpoint started, so s
On 9/11/17 03:11, Michael Banck wrote:
>> Is there a race condition here? The slot is created after the checkpoint
>> is completed. But you have to start streaming from the LSN where the
>> checkpoint started, so shouldn't the slot be created before the checkpoint
>> is started?
>
> So my patch
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 08:41:56AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 06.09.2017, 12:22 -0400 schrieb Peter Eisentraut:
> > On 8/18/17 05:28, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > > > Rebased, squashed and slighly edited version attached. I've added this
> > > > > to the 2017-07 commitfest n
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:30:20AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
> peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8/18/17 05:28, Michael Banck wrote:
> > >>> Rebased, squashed and slighly edited version attached. I've added this
> > >>> to th
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 8/18/17 05:28, Michael Banck wrote:
> >>> Rebased, squashed and slighly edited version attached. I've added this
> >>> to the 2017-07 commitfest now as well:
> >>>
> >>> https://commitfest.postgresql.o
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 06.09.2017, 12:22 -0400 schrieb Peter Eisentraut:
> On 8/18/17 05:28, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > > Rebased, squashed and slighly edited version attached. I've added this
> > > > to the 2017-07 commitfest now as well:
> > > >
> > > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1112/
Hi,
not directly related to the topic, but:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 03:34:00PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> For example, somebody creates a replica using the new super-easy
> method, and then blows it away without dropping the slot from the
> master,
Just a thought, but maybe there should be som
On 8/18/17 05:28, Michael Banck wrote:
>>> Rebased, squashed and slighly edited version attached. I've added this
>>> to the 2017-07 commitfest now as well:
>>>
>>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1112/
>> Can you rebase this past some conflicting changes?
> Thanks for letting me know, PFA a r
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 02:14:58PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Michael Banck
> wrote:
> > Rebased, squashed and slighly edited version attached. I've added this
> > to the 2017-07 commitfest now as well:
> >
> > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1112/
>
> Ca
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Michael Banck
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, den 24.03.2017, 19:32 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:41:54PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > > > So I tend to think that there sho
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 24.03.2017, 19:32 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:41:54PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > So I tend to think that there should always be some explicit user
> > > action to cause the creation
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:41:54PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > So I tend to think that there should always be some explicit user
> > action to cause the creation of a slot, like --create-slot-if-needed
> > or --create-slot=name. Tha
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > I think maybe we should output a message when the slot is created, at
> least
> > in verbose mode, to make sure people realize that happened. Does that
> seem
> > reasonable?
>
>
Hello, I favor this feature.
At Wed, 22 Mar 2017 00:18:19 -0400, Peter Eisentraut
wrote in
<1f5daba9-773d-9281-5608-37f049025...@2ndquadrant.com>
> On 3/21/17 15:34, Robert Haas wrote:
> > So I tend to think that there should always be some explicit user
> > action to cause the creation of a sl
On 3/21/17 15:34, Robert Haas wrote:
> So I tend to think that there should always be some explicit user
> action to cause the creation of a slot, like --create-slot-if-needed
> or --create-slot=name. That still won't prevent careless use of that
> option but it's less dangerous than assuming that
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 22.03.2017, 00:40 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck:
> I guess if we decide (physical) slots should not be created implicitly,
> then using the same UI as pg_receivewal makes sense for the sake of
> consistency, i.e. "--slot=name --create-slot [--if-not-exists]". That is
> rather ve
Am Dienstag, den 21.03.2017, 15:34 -0400 schrieb Robert Haas:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I think maybe we should output a message when the slot is created, at least
> > in verbose mode, to make sure people realize that happened. Does that seem
> > reasonable?
>
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I think maybe we should output a message when the slot is created, at least
> in verbose mode, to make sure people realize that happened. Does that seem
> reasonable?
Slots are great until you leave one lying around by accident. I'm
afra
Am Dienstag, den 21.03.2017, 12:52 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck:
> New patches attached.
On second though, there was a superfluous whitespace change in
t/010_pg_basebackup.pl, and I've moved the check-for-hex regex fix to
the second patch as it's cosmetic and not related to changing the --slot
crea
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 21.03.2017, 11:03 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Michael Banck
> wrote:
> /*
> + * Try to create a permanent replication slot if one is specified. Do
> + * not error out if the slot already exists, other errors are already
> +
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Michael Banck
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:42:32PM +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
>> Also maybe it would be good if pg_basebackup had a way to drop created slot.
>> Although "drop slot" is not related with concept of automatically created
>> slots, it will goo
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:42:32PM +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
> Also maybe it would be good if pg_basebackup had a way to drop created slot.
> Although "drop slot" is not related with concept of automatically created
> slots, it will good if user will have a way to drop slots.
If you want t
Hello,
On 19.03.2017 21:45, Michael Banck wrote:
So the patch I sent earlier creates the slot in ReceiveXlogStream() in
receivewal.c, as that's where the temp slot gets created as well, but
now I wonder whether that is maybe not the best place, as pg_receivewal
also calls that function. The oth
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 05:01:23PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Michael Banck
> wrote:
> > So I propose the attached tiny patch to just create the slot (if it does
> > not exist already) in pg_basebackup, somewhat similar to what
> > pg_receivewal does, al
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Michael Banck
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> with the default configuration improvements so far for 10, it seems to
> be very easy to setup streaming replication (at least locally):
>
> $ initdb --pgdata=data1
> $ pg_ctl --pgdata=data1 start
> $ pg_basebackup --pgdata=data2 --
Hi,
with the default configuration improvements so far for 10, it seems to
be very easy to setup streaming replication (at least locally):
$ initdb --pgdata=data1
$ pg_ctl --pgdata=data1 start
$ pg_basebackup --pgdata=data2 --write-recovery-conf
$ sed -i -e 's/^#port.=.5432/port = 5433/' \
> -e '
30 matches
Mail list logo
