On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:23 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:42 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:53
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:42 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:04 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 19.10.2012
On 19.10.2012 14:42, Amit kapila wrote:
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:49 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
Before implementing the timeout parameter, I think that it's better to change
both pg_basebackup background process and pg_receivexlog so that they
send back the reply message immediately when they
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:04 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 19.10.2012 14:42, Amit kapila wrote:
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:49 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
Before implementing the timeout parameter, I think that it's better
to change
both pg_basebackup background process and
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 16.10.2012 15:31, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 15.10.2012 19:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 15.10.2012 13:13, Heikki
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 16.10.2012 15:31, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 15.10.2012 19:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Heikki
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:04 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 19.10.2012 14:42, Amit kapila wrote:
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:49 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
Before implementing the timeout parameter, I think that
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:42 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:04 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 19.10.2012 14:42, Amit kapila wrote:
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:49 PM Fujii Masao
On 16.10.2012 15:31, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 15.10.2012 19:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 15.10.2012 13:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Oh, I didn't remember that we've documented the specific structs
that we
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2012 3:43 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 13.10.2012 19:35, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Ok, thanks. Committed.
I
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 15.10.2012 19:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 15.10.2012 13:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Oh, I didn't remember that we've
On Monday, October 15, 2012 3:43 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 13.10.2012 19:35, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Ok, thanks. Committed.
I found one typo. The attached patch fixes that typo.
Thanks, fixed.
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:16 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2012 3:43 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 13.10.2012 19:35, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Ok, thanks. Committed.
I found one
On 15.10.2012 19:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 15.10.2012 13:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Oh, I didn't remember that we've documented the specific structs that we
pass around. It's quite bogus anyway to explain
On 13.10.2012 19:35, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Ok, thanks. Committed.
I found one typo. The attached patch fixes that typo.
Thanks, fixed.
ISTM you need to update the protocol.sgml because you added
the field
On 15.10.2012 13:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 13.10.2012 19:35, Fujii Masao wrote:
ISTM you need to update the protocol.sgml because you added
the field 'replyRequested' to WalSndrMessage and StandbyReplyMessage.
Oh, I didn't remember that we've documented the specific structs that we
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 15.10.2012 13:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 13.10.2012 19:35, Fujii Masao wrote:
ISTM you need to update the protocol.sgml because you added
the field 'replyRequested' to WalSndrMessage and
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 11.10.2012 13:17, Amit Kapila wrote:
How does this look now?
The Patch is fine and test results are also fine.
Ok, thanks. Committed.
I found one typo. The attached patch fixes that typo.
ISTM you
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:15 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 04.10.2012 13:12, Amit kapila wrote:
Following changes are done to support replication timeout in sender as
well as receiver:
1. One new configuration parameter wal_receiver_timeout is added to
detect timeout at
On 11.10.2012 13:17, Amit Kapila wrote:
How does this look now?
The Patch is fine and test results are also fine.
Ok, thanks. Committed.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On 04.10.2012 13:12, Amit kapila wrote:
Following changes are done to support replication timeout in sender as well as
receiver:
1. One new configuration parameter wal_receiver_timeout is added to detect
timeout at receiver task.
2. Existing parameter replication_timeout is renamed to
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
How about following:
1. replication_client_timeout -- shouldn't it be client as new configuration
is for wal receiver
2. replication_standby_timeout
ISTM that the client and the standby are the same thing.
If we
On Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:00 PM Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
How about following:
1. replication_client_timeout -- shouldn't it be client as new
configuration
is for wal receiver
2. replication_standby_timeout
ISTM
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
1. One new configuration parameter wal_receiver_timeout is added to detect
timeout at receiver task.
2. Existing parameter replication_timeout is renamed to wal_sender_timeout.
-1 from me on a backward compatibility
On Monday, October 08, 2012 7:38 PM Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
1. One new configuration parameter wal_receiver_timeout is added to
detect timeout at receiver task.
2. Existing parameter replication_timeout is renamed to
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-bugs-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-bugs-
ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit kapila
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:43 PM
To: Heikki Linnakangas
Cc: Fujii Masao; pgsql-b...@postgresql.org; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [BUGS]
On 02.10.2012 10:36, Amit kapila wrote:
On Monday, October 01, 2012 4:08 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
So let's think how this should ideally work from a user's point of view.
I think there should be just two settings: walsender_timeout and
walreceiver_timeout. walsender_timeout specifies how
On 21.09.2012 14:18, Amit kapila wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:02 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Amit Kapilaamit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
Approach-2 :
Provide a variable wal_send_status_interval, such that if this is 0, then
the current behavior would prevail
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Hmm, I think we need to step back a bit. I've never liked the way
replication_timeout works, where it's the user's responsibility to set
wal_receiver_status_interval replication_timeout. It's not very
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Hmm, I think we need to step back a bit. I've never liked the way
replication_timeout works, where it's the user's responsibility to set
wal_receiver_status_interval replication_timeout. It's not very
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe many users are basically familiar with TCP keepalives and how to
specify it. So I think that this approach would be intuitive to users.
My experience is that many users are unfamiliar with TCP keepalives
and
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun oct 01 21:02:54 -0300 2012:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe many users are basically familiar with TCP keepalives and how to
specify it. So I think that this approach would be intuitive to users.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
To define the behavior correctly, according to me there are 2 options now:
Approach-1 :
Document that both(sender and receiver) the timeout parameters should be
greater than wal_receiver_status_interval.
If both are
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:03 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
To define the behavior correctly, according to me there are 2 options
now:
Approach-1 :
Document that both(sender and receiver) the timeout parameters should be
On Sunday, September 16, 2012 12:14 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 15, 2012 11:27 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
On Thursday, September
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 15, 2012 11:27 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:57 PM Fujii Masao
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:22
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:57 PM Fujii Masao
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:15 PM Fujii Masao
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:54 PM,
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:15 PM Fujii Masao
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:54 PM, amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7534
Logged by: Amit
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:15 PM Fujii Masao
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:54 PM, amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7534
Logged by: Amit Kapila
Email address: amit.kap...@huawei.com
PostgreSQL version:
39 matches
Mail list logo
