Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Okay. Here is an updated patch incorporating those comments. > > Committed with a little wordsmithing on the documentation. Thanks all. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Okay. Here is an updated patch incorporating those comments. Committed with a little wordsmithing on the documentation. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> This sentence is actually wrong, a feedback message is never sent with >>> the feedback message. >> >> Eh? > > "A feedback message is never sent depending on the status interval". > >> I think this looks basically fine, though I'd omit the short option >> for it. There are only so many letters in the alphabet, so let's not >> use them up for developer-convenience options. > > No objections to that. Okay. Here is an updated patch incorporating those comments. -- Michael pg_receivewal_nosync_v3.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> This sentence is actually wrong, a feedback message is never sent with >> the feedback message. > > Eh? "A feedback message is never sent depending on the status interval". > I think this looks basically fine, though I'd omit the short option > for it. There are only so many letters in the alphabet, so let's not > use them up for developer-convenience options. No objections to that. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > This sentence is actually wrong, a feedback message is never sent with > the feedback message. Eh? I think this looks basically fine, though I'd omit the short option for it. There are only so many letters in the alphabet, so let's not use them up for developer-convenience options. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > + > +By default, pg_receivewal flushes a WAL segment's > +contents each time a feedback message is sent to the server depending > +on the interval of time defined by > +--status-interval. > IMHO, it's okay to remove the part 'depending on > the.--status-interval'. This sentence is actually wrong, a feedback message is never sent with the feedback message. You need to use either --synchronous or --slot for that, and the docs are already clear on the matter. > +This option causes > +pg_receivewal to not issue such flushes waiting, > Did you mean 'to not issue such flush waitings'? By reading again the patch, "waiting" should not be here. I have reworded the documentation completely anyway. Hopefully it is more simple now. > + [ 'pg_receivewal', '-D', $stream_dir, '--synchronous', '--no-sync' ], > + 'failure if --synchronous specified without --no-sync'); > s/without/with Right. -- Michael pg_receivewal_nosync_v2.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > After thinking a bit on the subject, I have decided to submit a patch > to do $subject. This makes pg_receivewal more consistent with > pg_basebackup. This option is mainly useful for testing, something > that becomes way more doable since support for --endpos has been > added. > > Unsurprisingly, --synchronous and --no-sync are incompatible options. + +By default, pg_receivewal flushes a WAL segment's +contents each time a feedback message is sent to the server depending +on the interval of time defined by +--status-interval. IMHO, it's okay to remove the part 'depending on the.--status-interval'. +This option causes +pg_receivewal to not issue such flushes waiting, Did you mean 'to not issue such flush waitings'? + [ 'pg_receivewal', '-D', $stream_dir, '--synchronous', '--no-sync' ], + 'failure if --synchronous specified without --no-sync'); s/without/with -- Thanks & Regards, Kuntal Ghosh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers