On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Noah Misch wrote:
>>
>>> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Alvaro,
>>> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this op
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Noah Misch wrote:
>
>> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Alvaro,
>> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
>> item.
>
> That's correct. Since we already had a patch avai
Noah Misch wrote:
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Alvaro,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item.
That's correct. Since we already had a patch available, I pushed it.
I'll wait for a few days before marking the
Michael Paquier wrote:
> Actually, the attached is better. This one relies on time() to perform
> the delay checks, and takes care of things even for slow machines.
Thanks, pushed with some minor adjustments.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 2
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:18:46PM +0100, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> >> Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>> After sleeping (best debugger ever) on that, actually a way popped up
> >>>
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> After sleeping (best debugger ever) on that, actually a way popped up
>>> in my mind, and I propose the attached, which refactors a bit 005 and
>>> check
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> After sleeping (best debugger ever) on that, actually a way popped up
>> in my mind, and I propose the attached, which refactors a bit 005 and
>> checks that the LSN position of master has been applied on standby
>>
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Is there anything we can do to short-circuit the wait in the case that
> > replication happens promptly? A one-minute wait would be acceptable we
> > terminate it early by checking every second.
>
> After sleep
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Is there anything we can do to short-circuit the wait in the case that
> replication happens promptly? A one-minute wait would be acceptable we
> terminate it early by checking every second.
After sleeping (best debugger ever) on that, act
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > Here are a couple of ways to address this problem:
> > 1) Remove the check before applying the delay
> > 2) Increase recovery_min_apply_delay to a time that will allow even
> > slow machines to see a difference.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Here are a couple of ways to address this problem:
> 1) Remove the check before applying the delay
> 2) Increase recovery_min_apply_delay to a time that will allow even
> slow machines to see a difference. By experience with the other tests
11 matches
Mail list logo
