On 28 October 2017 at 03:53, Sokolov Yura wrote:
> On 2017-10-26 22:01, Sokolov Yura wrote:
> Small improvement compared to v7:
> - twophase_gid is written with alignment padding in the XactLogCommitRecord
> and XactLogAbortRecord.
I think Nikhils has done some significant work on this patch.
Ho
On 2017-10-26 22:01, Sokolov Yura wrote:
On 2017-09-27 14:46, Stas Kelvich wrote:
On 7 Sep 2017, at 18:58, Nikhil Sontakke
wrote:
Hi,
FYI all, wanted to mention that I am working on an updated version of
the latest patch that I plan to submit to a later CF.
Cool!
So what kind of architec
On 2017-09-27 14:46, Stas Kelvich wrote:
On 7 Sep 2017, at 18:58, Nikhil Sontakke
wrote:
Hi,
FYI all, wanted to mention that I am working on an updated version of
the latest patch that I plan to submit to a later CF.
Cool!
So what kind of architecture do you have in mind? Same way as is i
> On 7 Sep 2017, at 18:58, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> FYI all, wanted to mention that I am working on an updated version of
> the latest patch that I plan to submit to a later CF.
>
Cool!
So what kind of architecture do you have in mind? Same way as is it was
implemented before?
As
Hi,
FYI all, wanted to mention that I am working on an updated version of
the latest patch that I plan to submit to a later CF.
Regards,
Nikhils
On 14 May 2017 at 04:02, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 May 2017 at 22:22, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Apparently you are not testing
On 21 June 2017 at 17:30, sanyam jain wrote:
> Hi,
> After changing
> sendTimeLineIsHistoric = state->currTLI == ThisTimeLineID;
> to
> sendTimeLineIsHistoric = state->currTLI != ThisTimeLineID;
>
> I was facing another issue.
> On promotion of a cascaded server ThisTimeLineID in the standby serve
On 21 June 2017 at 13:28, sanyam jain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In this patch in walsender.c sendTimeLineIsHistoric is set to true when
> current and ThisTimeLineID are equal.
>
> sendTimeLineIsHistoric = state->currTLI == ThisTimeLineID;
>
>
> Shouldn't sendTimeLineIsHistoric is true when state->currTLI i
Hi,
>After changing
>sendTimeLineIsHistoric = state->currTLI == ThisTimeLineID;
>to
>sendTimeLineIsHistoric = state->currTLI != ThisTimeLineID;
>
>I was facing another issue.
>On promotion of a cascaded server ThisTimeLineID in the standby server having
>>logical slot becomes 0.
>Then i added a fu
Hi,
After changing
sendTimeLineIsHistoric = state->currTLI == ThisTimeLineID;
to
sendTimeLineIsHistoric = state->currTLI != ThisTimeLineID;
I was facing another issue.
On promotion of a cascaded server ThisTimeLineID in the standby server having
logical slot becomes 0.
Then i added a function cal
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 3:25:50 PM
To: Andres Freund
Cc: Craig Ringer; Simon Riggs; Thom Brown; Michael Paquier; Petr Jelinek;
PostgreSQL Hackers
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-05 17:18:24 +0800,
On 13 May 2017 at 22:22, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Apparently you are not testing against current HEAD. That's been there
> since d10c626de (a whole two days now ;-))
Indeed, I was working on a more than two-day old antiquity. Unfortunately,
it's even more complicated
to apply this patch against the c
Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> writes:
> Just a note about this patch. Of course time flies by and it needs rebase,
> but also there are few failing tests right now:
> ERROR: function pg_wal_lsn_diff(pg_lsn, unknown) does not exist
Apparently you are not testing against current HEAD. Tha
Hi
> On 4 April 2017 at 19:13, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Other than that issue current patch still could not pass 'make check'
> test of contrib/test_decoding.
Just a note about this patch. Of course time flies by and it needs rebase,
but also there are few failing tests right now:
* one that
2017-05-11 4:23 GMT-03:00 Friedrich, Steffen <
steffen.friedr...@dieboldnixdorf.com>:
> I am writing a logical decoding output plugin decoding WAL to SQL which is
> finally applied to target database.
>
>
>
> Is it possible to decode a TRUNCATE statement and the tables involved?
>
>
Yes, use event
Hi,
I am writing a logical decoding output plugin decoding WAL to SQL which is
finally applied to target database.
Is it possible to decode a TRUNCATE statement and the tables involved?
Assuming the SQL statement "TRUNCATE x, y;", I am interested in decoding the
operation TRUNCATE and the corr
On 5 April 2017 at 23:25, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2017-04-05 17:18:24 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> On 5 April 2017 at 04:19, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> > On 2017-04-04 22:32:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> >> I'm much happier with this.
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-05 17:18:24 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 5 April 2017 at 04:19, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > On 2017-04-04 22:32:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> >> I'm much happier with this. I'm still fixing some issues in the tests
>> >> for
On 2017-04-05 17:18:24 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 5 April 2017 at 04:19, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-04-04 22:32:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> I'm much happier with this. I'm still fixing some issues in the tests
> >> for 03 and tidying them up, but 03 should allow 01 and 02 to be
>
On 5 April 2017 at 04:19, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-04 22:32:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> I'm much happier with this. I'm still fixing some issues in the tests
>> for 03 and tidying them up, but 03 should allow 01 and 02 to be
>> reviewed in their proper context now.
>
> To me this ver
On 2017-04-04 22:32:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I'm much happier with this. I'm still fixing some issues in the tests
> for 03 and tidying them up, but 03 should allow 01 and 02 to be
> reviewed in their proper context now.
To me this very clearly is too late for v10, and now should be moved t
On 2017-04-04 13:06:13 +0300, Stas Kelvich wrote:
> That is just argument against Andres concern that prepared transaction
> is able to deadlock with decoding process — at least no such cases in
> regression tests.
There's few longer / adverse xacts, that doesn't say much.
> And that concern is
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>
>> On 4 Apr 2017, at 04:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>>
>> I reviewed this patch but when I tried to build contrib/test_decoding
>> I got the following error.
>>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Yes, seems that 18ce3a4a changed ProcessUtility_hook signature.
On 4 April 2017 at 22:32, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Here's the final set of three patches on top of what's already committed.
>
> The first is catalog_xmin logging, which is unchanged from the prior post.
>
> The 2nd is support for conflict with recovery, with changes that
> should address
Hi all
Here's the final set of three patches on top of what's already committed.
The first is catalog_xmin logging, which is unchanged from the prior post.
The 2nd is support for conflict with recovery, with changes that
should address Andres's concerns there.
The 3rd actually enables decoding
> On 4 Apr 2017, at 04:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
>
> I reviewed this patch but when I tried to build contrib/test_decoding
> I got the following error.
>
Thanks!
Yes, seems that 18ce3a4a changed ProcessUtility_hook signature.
Updated.
> There are still some unnecessary code in v5 patch.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>
>> On 28 Mar 2017, at 18:08, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> On 2017-03-28 15:55:15 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> That assertion is obviously false... the plugin can resolve this in
>>> various ways, if we allow it.
>>
>> Handling it by b
On 3 April 2017 at 15:27, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 3 April 2017 at 13:46, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> OK, updated catalog_xmin logging patch attached.
>
> Ahem, that should be v5.
... and here's v6, which returns to the separate
xl_xact_catalog_xmin_advance approach.
pgintented.
This is what I fa
On 3 April 2017 at 13:46, Craig Ringer wrote:
> OK, updated catalog_xmin logging patch attached.
Ahem, that should be v5.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From 7f742f582e1f6f8f23c4e9d78cd0298180e5387c Mon
On 31 March 2017 at 12:49, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 31 March 2017 at 01:16, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> @@ -9633,6 +9643,12 @@ xlog_redo(XLogReaderState *record)
>>> SetTransactionIdLimit(checkPoint.oldestXid,
>>> checkPoint.oldestXidDB);
>>>
>>> /*
>>> + *
On 31 March 2017 at 12:49, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 31 March 2017 at 01:16, Andres Freund wrote:
>> The comment and code don't quite square to me - it's far from obvious
>> that LogStandbySnapshot does something like that. I'd even say it's a
>> bad idea to have it do that.
>
> So you prefer the
On 31 March 2017 at 01:16, Andres Freund wrote:
>> @@ -9633,6 +9643,12 @@ xlog_redo(XLogReaderState *record)
>> SetTransactionIdLimit(checkPoint.oldestXid,
>> checkPoint.oldestXidDB);
>>
>> /*
>> + * There can be no concurrent writers to oldestCatalogXmin
On 31 March 2017 at 01:16, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-03-29 08:01:34 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 28 March 2017 at 23:22, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> >> --- a/doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml
>> >> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml
>> >> @@ -2034,6 +2034,8 @@ The commands accepted in walsender mo
On 2017-03-30 19:40:08 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 30 March 2017 at 18:16, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >> /*
> >> * Each page of XLOG file has a header like this:
> >> */
> >> -#define XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC 0xD097 /* can be used as WAL version
> >> indicator */
> >> +#define XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC
On 30 March 2017 at 18:16, Andres Freund wrote:
>> /*
>> * Each page of XLOG file has a header like this:
>> */
>> -#define XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC 0xD097 /* can be used as WAL version
>> indicator */
>> +#define XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC 0xD100 /* can be used as WAL version
>> indicator */
>
>
On 2017-03-29 08:01:34 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 28 March 2017 at 23:22, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >> --- a/doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml
> >> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml
> >> @@ -2034,6 +2034,8 @@ The commands accepted in walsender mode are:
> >>
> >>Drops a replication slo
> @@ -9633,6 +9643,12 @@ xlog_redo(XLogReaderState *record)
> SetTransactionIdLimit(checkPoint.oldestXid,
> checkPoint.oldestXidDB);
>
> /*
> + * There can be no concurrent writers to oldestCatalogXmin
> during
> + * recovery, so no need to
On 30 March 2017 at 15:27, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-03-30 15:26:02 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 30 March 2017 at 09:07, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
>> > Attached.
>>
>> * Cleaned up in 3 places
>> * Added code for faked up RunningTransactions in xlog.c
>> * Ensure catalog_xmin doesn't go back
On 2017-03-30 15:26:02 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 30 March 2017 at 09:07, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> > Attached.
>
> * Cleaned up in 3 places
> * Added code for faked up RunningTransactions in xlog.c
> * Ensure catalog_xmin doesn't go backwards
>
> All else looks good. Comments before commit?
On 30 March 2017 at 09:07, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Attached.
* Cleaned up in 3 places
* Added code for faked up RunningTransactions in xlog.c
* Ensure catalog_xmin doesn't go backwards
All else looks good. Comments before commit?
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Postgre
On 30 March 2017 at 11:34, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 29 March 2017 at 23:13, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 29 March 2017 at 10:17, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> On 29 March 2017 at 16:44, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>>
* Split oldestCatalogXmin tracking into separate patch
>>>
>>> Regarding this, Simon raise
On 29 March 2017 at 23:13, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 29 March 2017 at 10:17, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 29 March 2017 at 16:44, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
>>> * Split oldestCatalogXmin tracking into separate patch
>>
>> Regarding this, Simon raised concerns about xlog volume here.
>>
>> It's pretty neg
> On 28 Mar 2017, at 18:08, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2017-03-28 15:55:15 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>>
>> That assertion is obviously false... the plugin can resolve this in
>> various ways, if we allow it.
>
> Handling it by breaking replication isn't handling it (e.g. timeouts in
> dec
On 29 March 2017 at 10:17, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 29 March 2017 at 16:44, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> * Split oldestCatalogXmin tracking into separate patch
>
> Regarding this, Simon raised concerns about xlog volume here.
>
> It's pretty negligible.
>
> We only write a new record when a vacuum ru
On 29 March 2017 at 16:44, Craig Ringer wrote:
> * Split oldestCatalogXmin tracking into separate patch
Regarding this, Simon raised concerns about xlog volume here.
It's pretty negligible.
We only write a new record when a vacuum runs after catalog_xmin
advances on the slot with the currently
On 29 March 2017 at 08:11, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 29 March 2017 at 08:01, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> I just notice that I failed to remove the docs changes regarding
>> dropping slots becoming db-specific, so I'll post a follow-up for that
>> in a sec.
>
> Attached.
... and here's the next in th
On 28 Mar. 2017 23:08, "Andres Freund" wrote:
>
> > >> I don't think its for us to say what the plugin is allowed to do. We
> > >> decided on a plugin architecture, so we have to trust that the plugin
> > >> author resolves the issues. We can document them so those choices are
> > >> clear.
> > >
On 29 March 2017 at 08:01, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I just notice that I failed to remove the docs changes regarding
> dropping slots becoming db-specific, so I'll post a follow-up for that
> in a sec.
Attached.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Developmen
On 28 March 2017 at 23:22, Andres Freund wrote:
>> --- a/doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml
>> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml
>> @@ -2034,6 +2034,8 @@ The commands accepted in walsender mode are:
>>
>>Drops a replication slot, freeing any reserved server-side resources.
>> If
>>
Hi,
On 2017-03-27 16:03:48 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 27 March 2017 at 14:08, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> > So this patch makes ReplicationSlotAcquire check that the slot
> > database matches the current database and refuse to acquire the slot
> > if it does not.
>
> New patch attached that dr
On 2017-03-28 15:55:15 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 28 March 2017 at 15:38, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-03-28 15:32:49 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On 28 March 2017 at 03:53, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> > On 28 March 2017 at 09:25, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If you actually need s
On 28 March 2017 at 15:38, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-03-28 15:32:49 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 28 March 2017 at 03:53, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> > On 28 March 2017 at 09:25, Andres Freund wrote:
>> >
>> >> If you actually need separate decoding of 2PC, then you want to wait for
>> >> the
On 2017-03-28 15:32:49 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 28 March 2017 at 03:53, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > On 28 March 2017 at 09:25, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> >> If you actually need separate decoding of 2PC, then you want to wait for
> >> the PREPARE to be replicated. If that replication has to wa
On 28 March 2017 at 03:53, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 28 March 2017 at 09:25, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> If you actually need separate decoding of 2PC, then you want to wait for
>> the PREPARE to be replicated. If that replication has to wait for the
>> to-be-replicated prepared transaction to comm
On 28 March 2017 at 10:53, Craig Ringer wrote:
> However, even once I add an option to force decoding of 2pc xacts with
> catalog changes to test_decoding, I cannot reproduce the expected
> locking issues so far. See tests in attached updated version, in
> contrib/test_decoding/sql/prepare.sql .
On 28 March 2017 at 09:25, Andres Freund wrote:
> If you actually need separate decoding of 2PC, then you want to wait for
> the PREPARE to be replicated. If that replication has to wait for the
> to-be-replicated prepared transaction to commit prepared, and commit
> prepare will only happen onc
On 2017-03-28 03:30:28 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 28 March 2017 at 02:25, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-03-28 04:12:41 +0300, Stas Kelvich wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 28 Mar 2017, at 00:25, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On 2017-03-28 00:19:29 +0300, Stas Kelvich wrote:
> >
On 28 March 2017 at 02:25, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-03-28 04:12:41 +0300, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>>
>> > On 28 Mar 2017, at 00:25, Andres Freund wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On 2017-03-28 00:19:29 +0300, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>> >> Ok, here it is.
>> >
>> > On a very quick skim, this doesn't s
On 2017-03-28 04:12:41 +0300, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>
> > On 28 Mar 2017, at 00:25, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2017-03-28 00:19:29 +0300, Stas Kelvich wrote:
> >> Ok, here it is.
> >
> > On a very quick skim, this doesn't seem to solve the issues around
> > deadlocks of prepared
> On 28 Mar 2017, at 00:25, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-03-28 00:19:29 +0300, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>> Ok, here it is.
>
> On a very quick skim, this doesn't seem to solve the issues around
> deadlocks of prepared transactions vs. catalog tables. What if the
> prepared transaction
On 28 March 2017 at 08:50, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>
>> On 28 Mar 2017, at 00:19, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>>
>> * It is actually doesn’t pass one of mine regression tests. I’ve added
>> expected output
>> as it should be. I’ll try to send follow up message with fix, but right now
>> sending it
>> as is
On 28 March 2017 at 05:25, Andres Freund wrote:
> On a very quick skim, this doesn't seem to solve the issues around
> deadlocks of prepared transactions vs. catalog tables. What if the
> prepared transaction contains something like LOCK pg_class; (there's a
> lot more realistic examples)? Then
> On 28 Mar 2017, at 00:19, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>
> * It is actually doesn’t pass one of mine regression tests. I’ve added
> expected output
> as it should be. I’ll try to send follow up message with fix, but right now
> sending it
> as is, as you asked.
>
>
Fixed. I forgot to postpone Reor
Hi,
On 2017-03-28 00:19:29 +0300, Stas Kelvich wrote:
> Ok, here it is.
On a very quick skim, this doesn't seem to solve the issues around
deadlocks of prepared transactions vs. catalog tables. What if the
prepared transaction contains something like LOCK pg_class; (there's a
lot more realistic
> On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:29, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> On 27 March 2017 at 17:53, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>
>> I’m heavily underestimated amount of changes there, but almost finished
>> and will send updated patch in several hours.
>
> Oh, brilliant! Please post whatever you have before you knock of
On 27 March 2017 at 16:20, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 27 March 2017 at 09:03, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> I think this one's ready to go.
>
> Looks like something I could commit. Full review by me while offline
> today, aiming to commit tomorrow barring issues raised.
Great.
Meanwhile I'm going to be
On 27 March 2017 at 17:53, Stas Kelvich wrote:
> I’m heavily underestimated amount of changes there, but almost finished
> and will send updated patch in several hours.
Oh, brilliant! Please post whatever you have before you knock off for
the day anyway, even if it's just a WIP, so I can pick it
> On 27 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> On 27 March 2017 at 09:31, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> We're in the last week of the CF. If you have a patch that's nearly
>> ready or getting there, now would be a good time to post it for help
>> and input from others.
>>
>> I would really li
On 27 March 2017 at 09:31, Craig Ringer wrote:
> We're in the last week of the CF. If you have a patch that's nearly
> ready or getting there, now would be a good time to post it for help
> and input from others.
>
> I would really like to get this in, but we're running out of time.
>
> Even if y
On 27 March 2017 at 09:03, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I think this one's ready to go.
Looks like something I could commit. Full review by me while offline
today, aiming to commit tomorrow barring issues raised.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 S
On 27 March 2017 at 14:08, Craig Ringer wrote:
> So this patch makes ReplicationSlotAcquire check that the slot
> database matches the current database and refuse to acquire the slot
> if it does not.
New patch attached that drops above requirement, so slots can still be
dropped from any DB.
Th
Hi
Here's the next patch in the split-up series, drop db-specific
(logical) replication slots on DROP DATABASE.
Current behaviour is to ERROR if logical slots exist on the DB,
whether in-use or not.
With this patch we can DROP a database if it has logical slots so long
as they are not active. I
On 20 March 2017 at 17:33, Andres Freund wrote:
> Have you checked how high the overhead of XLogReadDetermineTimeline is?
> A non-local function call, especially into a different translation-unit
> (no partial inlining), for every single page might end up being
> noticeable. That's fine in the c
On 20 March 2017 at 21:47, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>
>> On 20 Mar 2017, at 16:39, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
>> On 20 March 2017 at 20:57, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>>>
On 20 Mar 2017, at 15:17, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I thought about having special field (or reusing one of the existing
> fi
On 24 March 2017 at 06:23, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 23 March 2017 at 17:44, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> Minor update to catalog_xmin walsender patch to fix failure to
> parenthesize definition of PROCARRAY_PROC_FLAGS_MASK .
>
> This one's ready to go. Working on drop slots on DB drop now.
Committed.
On 23 March 2017 at 17:44, Craig Ringer wrote:
Minor update to catalog_xmin walsender patch to fix failure to
parenthesize definition of PROCARRAY_PROC_FLAGS_MASK .
This one's ready to go. Working on drop slots on DB drop now.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Pos
On 23 March 2017 at 16:07, Craig Ringer wrote:
> If preferred I can instead add
>
> proc.h:
>
> #define PROC_RESERVED 0x20
>
> procarray.h:
>
> #define PROCARRAY_REPLICATION_SLOTS 0x20
>
> and then test for (flags & PROCARRAY_REPLICATION_SLOTS)
Attached done that way.
--
Craig Ringer
On 23 March 2017 at 00:13, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 22 March 2017 at 08:53, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> I'm splitting up the rest of the decoding on standby patch set with
>> the goal of getting minimal functionality for creating and managing
>> slots on standbys in, so we can maintain slots on stand
On 23 March 2017 at 12:41, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-03-23 12:14:02 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 23 March 2017 at 09:39, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > I still think decoding-on-standby is simply not the right approach as
>> > the basic/first HA approach for logical rep. It's a nice later-on
On 2017-03-23 12:14:02 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 23 March 2017 at 09:39, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I still think decoding-on-standby is simply not the right approach as
> > the basic/first HA approach for logical rep. It's a nice later-on
> > feature. But that's an irrelevant aside.
>
> I
On 23 March 2017 at 00:13, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 22 March 2017 at 08:53, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> I'm splitting up the rest of the decoding on standby patch set with
>> the goal of getting minimal functionality for creating and managing
>> slots on standbys in, so we can maintain slots on stand
On 23 March 2017 at 09:39, Andres Freund wrote:
> We can't just assume that snapbuild is going to work correctly when it's
> prerequisites - pinned xmin horizon - isn't working.
Makes sense.
>> What do _you_ see as the minimum acceptable way to achieve the ability
>> for a logical decoding clie
On 2017-03-23 09:14:07 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 23 March 2017 at 07:31, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-03-23 06:55:53 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> >> I was thinking that by disallowing snapshot use and output plugin
> >> invocation we'd avoid the need to support cancellation on recover
On 23 March 2017 at 07:31, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-03-23 06:55:53 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> I was thinking that by disallowing snapshot use and output plugin
>> invocation we'd avoid the need to support cancellation on recovery
>> conflicts, etc, simplifying things considerably.
>
> Th
On 23 March 2017 at 00:17, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-03-22 15:59:42 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 22 March 2017 at 13:06, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> >> The parts I think are important for Pg10 are:
>> >
>> >> * Ability to create logical slots on replicas
>> >
>> > Doesn't this also imply r
On 2017-03-23 06:55:53 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 22 March 2017 at 21:06, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2017-03-21 09:05:26 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> > 0002 should be doable as a whole this release, I have severe doubts that
> >> > 0003 as a whole has a chance for 10 - the cod
On 22 March 2017 at 21:06, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-03-21 09:05:26 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> > 0002 should be doable as a whole this release, I have severe doubts that
>> > 0003 as a whole has a chance for 10 - the code is in quite a raw shape,
>> > there's a significant number o
On 2017-03-22 15:59:42 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 22 March 2017 at 13:06, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >> The parts I think are important for Pg10 are:
> >
> >> * Ability to create logical slots on replicas
> >
> > Doesn't this also imply recovery conflicts on DROP DATABASE?
>
> Not needed until
On 22 March 2017 at 08:53, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I'm splitting up the rest of the decoding on standby patch set with
> the goal of getting minimal functionality for creating and managing
> slots on standbys in, so we can maintain slots on standbys and use
> them when the standby is promoted to ma
On 22 March 2017 at 13:06, Andres Freund wrote:
>> The parts I think are important for Pg10 are:
>
>> * Ability to create logical slots on replicas
>
> Doesn't this also imply recovery conflicts on DROP DATABASE?
Not needed until the slot is in use, which is a later patch.
> Besides,
> allowing
On 2017-03-22 14:58:29 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 22 March 2017 at 13:06, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > But I have to admit, I've *severe* doubts about getting the whole
> > infrastructure for slot creation on replica into 10. The work is far
> > from ready, and we're mere days away from freeze
On 22 March 2017 at 13:06, Andres Freund wrote:
> But I have to admit, I've *severe* doubts about getting the whole
> infrastructure for slot creation on replica into 10. The work is far
> from ready, and we're mere days away from freeze.
If Craig has to guess what would be acceptable, then its
Hi,
On 2017-03-21 09:05:26 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > 0002 should be doable as a whole this release, I have severe doubts that
> > 0003 as a whole has a chance for 10 - the code is in quite a raw shape,
> > there's a significant number of open ends. I'd suggest breaking of bits
> > that are i
On 22 March 2017 at 10:51, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Updated timeline following patch attached.
>
> There's a change in read_local_xlog_page to ensure we maintain
> ThisTimeLineID properly, otherwise it's just comment changes.
OK, so we're looking OK with the TL following.
I'm splitting u
Hi all
Updated timeline following patch attached.
There's a change in read_local_xlog_page to ensure we maintain
ThisTimeLineID properly, otherwise it's just comment changes.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Service
On 21 March 2017 at 09:05, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Thanks, that's a helpful point. The commit in question is 978b2f65. I
> didn't notice that it introduced XLogReader use in twophase.c, though
> I should've realised given the discussion about fetching recent 2pc
> info from xlog. I don't see any po
On 21 March 2017 at 02:21, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 20 March 2017 at 17:33, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>>> Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Follow timeline switches in logical decoding
>>
>> FWIW, the title doesn't really seem accurate to me.
>
> Yeah, it's not really at the logical decoding layer at all.
>
> "T
On 20 March 2017 at 17:33, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Follow timeline switches in logical decoding
>
> FWIW, the title doesn't really seem accurate to me.
Yeah, it's not really at the logical decoding layer at all.
"Teach xlogreader to follow timeline switches" ?
>> Logical s
.On 20 March 2017 at 17:33, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Have you checked how high the overhead of XLogReadDetermineTimeline is?
> A non-local function call, especially into a different translation-unit
> (no partial inlining), for every single page might end up being
> noticeable. That's fine
On 19 March 2017 at 22:12, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> I am slightly worried about impact of the readTimeLineHistory() call but
> I think it should be called so little that it should not matter.
Pretty much my thinking too.
> That brings us to the big patch 0003.
>
> I still don't like the "New in 10
> On 20 Mar 2017, at 16:39, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> On 20 March 2017 at 20:57, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>>
>>> On 20 Mar 2017, at 15:17, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>>
I thought about having special field (or reusing one of the existing
fields)
in snapshot struct to force filtering xmax
1 - 100 of 334 matches
Mail list logo
