Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> >> >> I’m not entirely sure why this was flagged as "Waiting for Author” by the >> automatic run, the patch applies for me and builds so resetting back to >> “Needs >> review”. >> > > This patch applies and build cleanly and I did a testing with one publisher > and one subscriber, and confirm that the replication state after restarting > the server now is "streaming" and not "Catchup". > > And, I don't find any issues with code and patch to me is ready for > committer, marked the same in cf entry. > Thank you for the reviewing the patch! Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- 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] Replication status in logical replication
Hi, On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > I’m not entirely sure why this was flagged as "Waiting for Author” by the > automatic run, the patch applies for me and builds so resetting back to > “Needs > review”. > > This patch applies and build cleanly and I did a testing with one publisher and one subscriber, and confirm that the replication state after restarting the server now is "streaming" and not "Catchup". And, I don't find any issues with code and patch to me is ready for committer, marked the same in cf entry. Thanks & Regards, Vaishnavi, Fujitsu Australia.
Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication
> On 30 May 2017, at 19:55, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 5/29/17 22:56, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:33:48AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: Looks like a bug that we should fix in PG10, with backpatch to 9.4 (or as far as it goes). Objections to commit? >>> >>> Seems we still have this issue. Any update or comment on this? Barring >>> any objections, I'll add this to the open item so it doesn't get >>> missed. >> >> [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] >> >> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter, >> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open >> item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a >> v10 open item, please let us know. > > I would ask Simon to go ahead with this patch if he feels comfortable > with it. > > I'm disclaiming this open item, since it's an existing bug from previous > releases (and I have other open items to focus on). I’m not entirely sure why this was flagged as "Waiting for Author” by the automatic run, the patch applies for me and builds so resetting back to “Needs review”. Simon: do you think you will have time to look at this patch in this CF? cheers ./daniel -- 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] Replication status in logical replication
On 5/29/17 22:56, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:33:48AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Looks like a bug that we should fix in PG10, with backpatch to 9.4 (or >>> as far as it goes). >>> >>> Objections to commit? >>> >> >> Seems we still have this issue. Any update or comment on this? Barring >> any objections, I'll add this to the open item so it doesn't get >> missed. > > [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a > v10 open item, please let us know. I would ask Simon to go ahead with this patch if he feels comfortable with it. I'm disclaiming this open item, since it's an existing bug from previous releases (and I have other open items to focus on). -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- 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] Replication status in logical replication
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:33:48AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 22 March 2017 at 02:50, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > > >> When using logical replication, I ran into a situation where the > >> pg_stat_replication.state is not updated until any wal record is sent > >> after started up. For example, I set up logical replication with 2 > >> subscriber and restart the publisher server, but I see the following > >> status for a while (maybe until autovacuum run). > > ... > > > >> Attached patch fixes this behavior by updating WalSndCaughtUp before > >> trying to read next WAL if already caught up. > > > > Looks like a bug that we should fix in PG10, with backpatch to 9.4 (or > > as far as it goes). > > > > Objections to commit? > > > > Seems we still have this issue. Any update or comment on this? Barring > any objections, I'll add this to the open item so it doesn't get > missed. [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter, since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com -- 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] Replication status in logical replication
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 22 March 2017 at 02:50, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >> When using logical replication, I ran into a situation where the >> pg_stat_replication.state is not updated until any wal record is sent >> after started up. For example, I set up logical replication with 2 >> subscriber and restart the publisher server, but I see the following >> status for a while (maybe until autovacuum run). > ... > >> Attached patch fixes this behavior by updating WalSndCaughtUp before >> trying to read next WAL if already caught up. > > Looks like a bug that we should fix in PG10, with backpatch to 9.4 (or > as far as it goes). > > Objections to commit? > Seems we still have this issue. Any update or comment on this? Barring any objections, I'll add this to the open item so it doesn't get missed. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- 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] Replication status in logical replication
On 22 March 2017 at 02:50, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > When using logical replication, I ran into a situation where the > pg_stat_replication.state is not updated until any wal record is sent > after started up. For example, I set up logical replication with 2 > subscriber and restart the publisher server, but I see the following > status for a while (maybe until autovacuum run). ... > Attached patch fixes this behavior by updating WalSndCaughtUp before > trying to read next WAL if already caught up. Looks like a bug that we should fix in PG10, with backpatch to 9.4 (or as far as it goes). Objections to commit? -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
