Robert, Michael,
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > All of (1)-(3) are legitimate user choices, although not everyone will
> > make them. (4) is unfortunately the procedure recommended by our
> > documentation, which is w
On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> All of (1)-(3) are legitimate user choices, although not everyone will
> make them. (4) is unfortunately the procedure recommended by our
> documentation, which is where the problem comes in. I think it's
> pretty lame that the documentation r
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Paul A Jungwirth
> wrote:
>> I don't have an opinion on the urgency of back-porting a fix, but if
>> pg_stop_backup(boolean) allows for inconsistent backups, it does sound
>> like a problem on 9.6 too.
>
> It doe
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Paul A Jungwirth
wrote:
> I don't have an opinion on the urgency of back-porting a fix, but if
> pg_stop_backup(boolean) allows for inconsistent backups, it does sound
> like a problem on 9.6 too.
It doesn't. The talk about inconsistent backups is, I think, not a
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Paul A Jungwirth
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> After refreshing my memory further, I take it back. pg_stop_backup()
>> doesn't even have a second argument on v9.6, so back-porting this fix
>> to 9.6 is a meaningless thing; there's
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> After refreshing my memory further, I take it back. pg_stop_backup()
> doesn't even have a second argument on v9.6, so back-porting this fix
> to 9.6 is a meaningless thing; there's nothing to fix.
According to the docs at
https://www.postgres
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Because default values should be safe in the backup and restore area,
> and wait_for_archive = false is not the default.
Neither is archive_mode = always, without which wait_for_archive =
true doesn't actually wait.
> I would like to poin
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> If we apply these patches to 9.6, then pg_stop_backup() on a standby
>> will start writing backup history files and removing no-longer-needed
>> backup history files. That's a clear behavio
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> If we apply these patches to 9.6, then pg_stop_backup() on a standby
> will start writing backup history files and removing no-longer-needed
> backup history files. That's a clear behavior change, and it isn't a
> bug fix. Making the waitforar
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> If no other committer wants to take a shot at those patches, it may be
>> better to push them after the next minor release happens? I don't like
>> delaying bug fixes, but the release is close by and time flies.
>
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Unfortunately the day got away from me due to some personal... adventures
>> (having to do with lack of air conditioning first and then lack of gas,
>> amongst a lot of other things go
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Unfortunately the day got away from me due to some personal... adventures
> (having to do with lack of air conditioning first and then lack of gas,
> amongst a lot of other things going on right now...). I just got things back
> online but, we
Robert,
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 23:17 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Thanks for the patches. I'm planning to push them tomorrow morning
> > after a bit more review and testing. I'll provide an update tomorrow.
>
> Obviously, the part about pushing
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Thanks for the patches. I'm planning to push them tomorrow morning
> after a bit more review and testing. I'll provide an update tomorrow.
Obviously, the part about pushing them Friday morning didn't happen,
and you're running out of time f
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Michael,
>
> * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> >> Do you need a back-patchable version for 9.6? I could g
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'll provide another update tomorrow. Hopefully Michael is able to produce
> > a 9.6 patch, otherwise I'll do it.
>
> I have sent an updated version of the patch, with something that c
Michael,
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> Do you need a back-patchable version for 9.6? I could get one out of
> >> my pocket if necessary.
> >
> > I was just t
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I'll provide another update tomorrow. Hopefully Michael is able to produce
> a 9.6 patch, otherwise I'll do it.
I have sent an updated version of the patch, with something that can
be used for 9.6 as well. It would be nice to get something i
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Do you need a back-patchable version for 9.6? I could get one out of
>> my pocket if necessary.
>
> I was just trying to find a bit of time to generate exactly that- if
> you have a coupl
Noah,
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 20:52 Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27:36AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Noah, all,
> >
> > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> > > This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.
> Kindly send
> > > a status update within 2
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> >> >> This PostgreSQL 10 open
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
>> >> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly
>> >> send
>>
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27:36AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Noah, all,
>
> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> > This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly
> > send
> > a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent
> > status
> >
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> >> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly
> >> send
> >> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for yo
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
>> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
>> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent
>> status
>> update. Refer to the policy on
Noah, all,
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
Based on the ongoing discussio
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 07:04:32PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Masahiko, all,
>
> * Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Masahiko, Michael,
> > >
> > > * Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > >> > This is beg
All,
* Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> What the change would do is make the pg_stop_backup() caller block until
> >> the last WAL is archvied, and perhaps tha
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> What the change would do is make the pg_stop_backup() caller block until
>> the last WAL is archvied, and perhaps that ends up taking hours, and
>> then the connection is dropped for
On 7/24/17 3:28 PM, David Steele wrote:
Yes, and this is another behavioral change to consider -- one that is
more likely to impact users than the change to pg_stop_backup(). If
pg_basebackup is not currently waiting for WAL on a standby (but does on
a primary) then that's pretty serious.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> What the change would do is make the pg_stop_backup() caller block until
> the last WAL is archvied, and perhaps that ends up taking hours, and
> then the connection is dropped for whatever reason and the backup fails
> where it otherwise
On 7/24/17 12:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote:
While this patch brings pg_stop_backup() in line with the
documentation, it also introduces a behavioral change compared to
9.6. Currently, the default 9.6 behavior on a standby is to return
immediately from
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Those backup scripts might very well be, today, producing invalid
> > backups though, which would be much less good..
>
> True. However, I suspect that depends on what procedure is
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Those backup scripts might very well be, today, producing invalid
> backups though, which would be much less good..
True. However, I suspect that depends on what procedure is actually
being followed. If *everyone* who is using this is get
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:40 AM, David Steele wrote:
> > Before reviewing the patch, I would note that it looks like this issue was
> > introduced in b6a323a8c before the 9.6 release. The documentation states
> > that the pg_stop_backup() f
David,
* David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote:
> On 7/23/17 11:48 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >>
> >>I started discussing this with David off-list and he'd like a chance to
> >>review it in a bit more detail (he's just returning from b
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:40 AM, David Steele wrote:
> Before reviewing the patch, I would note that it looks like this issue was
> introduced in b6a323a8c before the 9.6 release. The documentation states
> that the pg_stop_backup() function will wait for all required WAL to be
> archived, which
On 7/23/17 11:48 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
I started discussing this with David off-list and he'd like a chance to
review it in a bit more detail (he's just returning from being gone for
a few weeks). That review will be posted to this th
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Masahiko, all,
>
> * Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > Masahiko, Michael,
>> >
>> > * Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> >> > This is beginning to shap
Masahiko, all,
* Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Masahiko, Michael,
> >
> > * Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> > This is beginning to shape.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I missed lots of typo in the last patch. All
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Masahiko, Michael,
>
> * Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> > This is beginning to shape.
>>
>> Sorry, I missed lots of typo in the last patch. All comments from you
>> are incorporated into the attached latest patch and I've c
Masahiko, Michael,
* Masahiko Sawada (sawada.m...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > This is beginning to shape.
>
> Sorry, I missed lots of typo in the last patch. All comments from you
> are incorporated into the attached latest patch and I've checked it
> whether there is other typos. Please review it.
I'
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Michael, all,
>
> * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>> > Sorry, I missed lots of typo in the last patch. All comments from you
>> > are incorporated into the
Michael, all,
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > Sorry, I missed lots of typo in the last patch. All comments from you
> > are incorporated into the attached latest patch and I've checked it
> > whether there is ot
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Sorry, I missed lots of typo in the last patch. All comments from you
> are incorporated into the attached latest patch and I've checked it
> whether there is other typos. Please review it.
Thanks for providing a new version of the patch v
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> Attached updated version patch. Please review it.
>
> Cool, thanks.
Thank you for reviewing the patch.
>
> +useless. If the second parameter wait_for_archive is true
> an
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached updated version patch. Please review it.
Cool, thanks.
+useless. If the second parameter wait_for_archive is true and
+the backup is taken on a standby, pg_stop_backup waits for WAL
+to archived when archive_mode is a
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> So I would suggest the following things to address this issue:
>>> 1) Generate a backup history file for backups
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> So I would suggest the following things to address this issue:
>> 1) Generate a backup history file for backups taken at recovery as well.
>> 2) Archive it if archive_mode = alway
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
>> [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
>>
>> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Stephen,
>> since you committed the patch believed to hav
All,
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:59:11PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> > > On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > >> I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the
> > > >>
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:59:11PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Peter, all,
>
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> > On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >> I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the implementation
> > >> for
> > >> 10, and as s
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Why not refactoring a bit do_pg_stop_backup() so as the wait phase
>> happens even if a backup is started in recovery? Now wait_for_archive
>> is ignored because no wait is happeni
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> I agree with this idea. I've tried to make it wait for archiving but
>> it seems to me that there are other two issues we need to deal with:
>> the timeline ID on standby server is a
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I agree with this idea. I've tried to make it wait for archiving but
> it seems to me that there are other two issues we need to deal with:
> the timeline ID on standby server is always reset after created a
> restart point, and ThisTimeLine
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> I feel that since we cannot switch the WAL forcibly on the standby
>> server we need to find a new way to do so. I'm not sure but it might
>> be a hard work and be late for PG10.
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Why not refactoring a bit do_pg_stop_backup() so as the wait phase
> happens even if a backup is started in recovery? Now wait_for_archive
> is ignored because no wait is happening and the stop point is directly
> returned back to the caller
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I feel that since we cannot switch the WAL forcibly on the standby
> server we need to find a new way to do so. I'm not sure but it might
> be a hard work and be late for PG10. Or you meant that you have a idea
> for this?
Why not refactor
On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>>> On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> >> I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the implementatio
On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> >> I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the implementation
>> >> for
>> >> 10, and as such is "open for fixing". Howe
Peter, all,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the implementation
> >> for
> >> 10, and as such is "open for fixing". However, it's not a very critical bug
> >> so I dou
On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the implementation for
>> 10, and as such is "open for fixing". However, it's not a very critical bug
>> so I doubt it should be a release blocker, but if someone wants to work on a
>> fix I think we s
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Magnus Hagander
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Si
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Masahiko Sawada >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Since an optional second argument wait_for_archive of pg_stop_backup
> >> has b
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since an optional second argument wait_for_archive of pg_stop_backup
>> has been introduced in PostgreSQL 10 we can choose whether wait for
>> archiving. But
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since an optional second argument wait_for_archive of pg_stop_backup
> has been introduced in PostgreSQL 10 we can choose whether wait for
> archiving. But my colleagues found that we can do pg_stop_backup with
> wait_for_archive
Hi,
Since an optional second argument wait_for_archive of pg_stop_backup
has been introduced in PostgreSQL 10 we can choose whether wait for
archiving. But my colleagues found that we can do pg_stop_backup with
wait_for_archive = true on the standby server but it actually doesn't
wait for WAL arc
67 matches
Mail list logo
