Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-04-30 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On 2/19/15 4:33 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 02/19/2015 12:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 1/6/15 4:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: That said, there is a much simpler way to achieve that specific functionality: Expose all

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-02-19 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 1/6/15 4:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: That said, there is a much simpler way to achieve that specific functionality: Expose all the recovery settings as fake read-only GUC variables. See attached patch for an example. The commit fest app has this as the patch of record. I don't think

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-02-19 Thread Josh Berkus
On 02/19/2015 12:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 1/6/15 4:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: That said, there is a much simpler way to achieve that specific functionality: Expose all the recovery settings as fake read-only GUC variables. See attached patch for an example. The commit fest app

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-16 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: I have written similar logic, and while it's not pleasant, it's doable. This issue would really only go away if you don't use a file to signal recovery at all, which you have argued for, but which is really a separate and

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-16 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-01-16 21:43:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: I have written similar logic, and while it's not pleasant, it's doable. This issue would really only go away if you don't use a file to signal recovery at all, which

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-16 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 2015-01-16 21:43:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: I have written similar logic, and while it's not pleasant, it's doable. This issue would

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-16 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-01-16 21:50:16 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 2015-01-16 21:43:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: I have written similar logic, and

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-14 Thread Josh Berkus
On 01/15/2015 02:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: I think your idea of adding read-only GUCs with the same names as all of the recovey.conf parameters is a clear win. Even if we do nothing more than that, it makes the values visible from the SQL level, and that's good. But I think we should go

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: I have previously argued for a different approach: Ready recovery.conf as a configuration file after postgresql.conf, but keep it as a file to start recovery. That doesn't break any old workflows, it gets you all the

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-14 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 14/01/15 14:24, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: I have previously argued for a different approach: Ready recovery.conf as a configuration file after postgresql.conf, but keep it as a file to start recovery. That doesn't break any

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-08 Thread Josh Berkus
On 01/08/2015 12:57 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: c) Infrastructure for changing settings effective during recovery. Right now we'd have to rebuild a lot of guc infrasturcture to allow that. It'd not be that hard to allow changing parameters like restore_command, primary_conninfo,

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 1/6/15 4:40 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: Btw., I'm not sure that everyone will be happy to have primary_conninfo visible, since it might contain passwords. Didn't we discuss this? I forgot what the conclusion was ... probably not to put passwords in primary_conninfo. One can always say, don't

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 1/6/15 8:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2015-01-05 20:43:12 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: For example, putting recovery target parameters into postgresql.conf might not make sense to some people. Once you have reached the recovery end point, the information is obsolete. Keeping it set

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-07 Thread Josh Berkus
On 01/07/2015 02:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 1/6/15 7:33 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: D. Wierd name: for those doing only replication, not PITR, recovery.conf is completely baffling. I don't disagree, but standby.enabled or whatever isn't any better, for the inverse reason. Yeah. Like I

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 1/6/15 7:33 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: D. Wierd name: for those doing only replication, not PITR, recovery.conf is completely baffling. I don't disagree, but standby.enabled or whatever isn't any better, for the inverse reason. But replication and PITR are the same thing, so any name is going

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-07 Thread Kevin Grittner
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 2015-01-06 17:08:20 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: On 01/06/2015 04:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2015-01-06 16:33:36 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: F. Inability to remaster without restarting the replica. That has pretty much nothing to do with the

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-06 Thread Josh Berkus
On 01/06/2015 01:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: That said, there is a much simpler way to achieve that specific functionality: Expose all the recovery settings as fake read-only GUC variables. See attached patch for an example. I have no objections to that idea in principle. As long as it

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 1/6/15 12:57 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 01/05/2015 05:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: The wins on the other hand are obscure: You can now use SHOW to inspect recovery settings. You can design your own configuration file include structures to set them. These are not bad, but is that all?

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-06 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-01-06 16:33:36 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: F. Inability to remaster without restarting the replica. That has pretty much nothing to do with the topic at hand. I. Fairly duplicative options between pg.conf and recovery.conf (i.e. standby_mode vs. hot_standby) Those aren't the same.

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-06 Thread Josh Berkus
Peter, all: Let me go over the issues I find with recovery.conf, based on 3 aspects of my experience (1) doing DBA support (2) as a tool author (HandyRep) and (3) as a trainer, teaching new users about it. If we agree on a list of problems with the current setup (as well as a list of benefits)

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-06 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-01-05 20:43:12 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: For example, putting recovery target parameters into postgresql.conf might not make sense to some people. Once you have reached the recovery end point, the information is obsolete. Keeping it set could be considered confusing. I don't

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-06 Thread Josh Berkus
On 01/06/2015 05:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote: A real solution to this requires more. You need to 1) disable writing any wal 2) force catchup of all possible standbys, including apply. Most importantly of the new master. This requires knowing which standbys exist. 3) promote new master. 4) only

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-06 Thread Josh Berkus
On 01/06/2015 04:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2015-01-06 16:33:36 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: F. Inability to remaster without restarting the replica. That has pretty much nothing to do with the topic at hand. It has *everything* to do with the topic at hand. The *only* reason we can't

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-06 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-01-06 17:08:20 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: On 01/06/2015 04:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2015-01-06 16:33:36 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: F. Inability to remaster without restarting the replica. That has pretty much nothing to do with the topic at hand. It has *everything* to do

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
I think this is a valuable effort, but I wonder how we are going to arrive at a consensus. I don't see any committer supporting these changes. Clearly, there are some advantages to having recovery parameters be GUCs, but the proposed changes also come with some disadvantages, and the tradeoffs

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-05 Thread Josh Berkus
On 01/05/2015 05:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: The wins on the other hand are obscure: You can now use SHOW to inspect recovery settings. You can design your own configuration file include structures to set them. These are not bad, but is that all? That's not the only potential win, and

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2015-01-05 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 24/12/14 20:11, Alex Shulgin wrote: Alex Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com writes: - the StandbyModeRequested and StandbyMode should be lowercased like the rest of the GUCs Yes, except that standby_mode is linked to StandbyModeRequested, not the other one. I can try see if there's a sane

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-12-24 Thread Alex Shulgin
Alex Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com writes: Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com writes: I had a quick look, the patch does not apply cleanly anymore but it's just release notes so nothing too bad. Yes, there were some ongoing changes that touched some parts of this and I must have missed the

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-12-23 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 12/12/14 16:34, Alex Shulgin wrote: Alex Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com writes: Alex Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com writes: Here's an attempt to revive this patch. Here's the patch rebased against current HEAD, that is including the recently committed action_at_recovery_target option.

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-12-12 Thread Alex Shulgin
Alex Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com writes: Alex Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com writes: Here's an attempt to revive this patch. Here's the patch rebased against current HEAD, that is including the recently committed action_at_recovery_target option. The default for the new GUC is 'pause',

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-12-02 Thread Alex Shulgin
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Alex Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com wrote: Here's the patch rebased against current HEAD, that is including the recently committed action_at_recovery_target option. If this patch gets in, it gives a good

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-12-02 Thread Josh Berkus
On 12/02/2014 06:25 AM, Alex Shulgin wrote: I am not in favor of this part. It may be better to let the users know that their old configuration is not valid anymore with an error. This patch cuts in the flesh with a huge axe, let's be sure that users do not ignore the side pain effects, or

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-12-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Josh Berkus wrote: On 12/02/2014 06:25 AM, Alex Shulgin wrote: Whatever tricks we might employ will likely be defeated by the fact that the oldschool user will fail to *include* recovery.conf in the main conf file. Well, can we merge this patch and then fight out what to do for the

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-12-02 Thread Josh Berkus
On 12/02/2014 10:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Josh Berkus wrote: On 12/02/2014 06:25 AM, Alex Shulgin wrote: Whatever tricks we might employ will likely be defeated by the fact that the oldschool user will fail to *include* recovery.conf in the main conf file. Well, can we merge this

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-12-02 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-12-02 17:25:14 +0300, Alex Shulgin wrote: I'd be in favor of a solution that works the same way as before the patch, without the need for extra trigger files, etc., but that doesn't seem to be nearly possible. Whatever tricks we might employ will likely be defeated by the fact that

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-12-02 Thread Alex Shulgin
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 2014-12-02 17:25:14 +0300, Alex Shulgin wrote: I'd be in favor of a solution that works the same way as before the patch, without the need for extra trigger files, etc., but that doesn't seem to be nearly possible. Whatever tricks we might

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-12-01 Thread Alex Shulgin
Alex Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com writes: Here's an attempt to revive this patch. Here's the patch rebased against current HEAD, that is including the recently committed action_at_recovery_target option. The default for the new GUC is 'pause', as in HEAD, and pause_at_recovery_target is

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-12-01 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Alex Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com wrote: Here's the patch rebased against current HEAD, that is including the recently committed action_at_recovery_target option. If this patch gets in, it gives a good argument to jump to 10.0 IMO. That's not a bad thing, only

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Alex Shulgin
Alex Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com writes: * Why do you include xlog_internal.h in guc.c and not xlog.h? we actually need both but including xlog_internal.h also includes xlog.h i added xlog.h and if someone things is enough only putting xlog_internal.h let me know What's required from

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Alex Shulgin
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: Well, the latest version of this patch fails to start when it sees 'recovery.conf' in PGDATA: FATAL: recovery.conf is not supported anymore as a recovery method DETAIL: Refer to appropriate documentation about migration methods I've missed

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Stephen Frost
* Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote: What exactly you mean by 'disable postgresql.auto.conf', do you mean user runs Alter System to remove that entry or manually disable some particular entry? Last I paid attention to this, there was a clear way to disable the inclusion of

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Stephen Frost wrote: * Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote: What exactly you mean by 'disable postgresql.auto.conf', do you mean user runs Alter System to remove that entry or manually disable some particular entry? Last I paid attention to this, there was a clear way to disable

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Stephen Frost
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: * Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote: What exactly you mean by 'disable postgresql.auto.conf', do you mean user runs Alter System to remove that entry or manually disable some particular entry? Last

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Stephen Frost wrote: * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: Last I paid attention to this, there was a clear way to disable the inclusion of postgresql.auto.conf in the postgresql.conf. If that's gone, then there is a serious problem. Administrators who manage their

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Stephen Frost
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: Last I paid attention to this, there was a clear way to disable the inclusion of postgresql.auto.conf in the postgresql.conf. If that's gone, then there is a

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-11-24 10:13:58 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: * Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote: What exactly you mean by 'disable postgresql.auto.conf', do you mean user runs Alter System to remove that entry

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Tom Lane
Alex Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com writes: Maybe we should move these check/assign hooks to xlog.c, but that's likely going to create header files dependency problem due to use of GucSource in the hook prototype... As far as that goes, there is already plenty of precedent for declaring

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread David G Johnston
Stephen Frost wrote * Alvaro Herrera ( alvherre@ ) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: * Amit Kapila ( amit.kapila16@ ) wrote: What exactly you mean by 'disable postgresql.auto.conf', do you mean user runs Alter System to remove that entry or manually disable some particular entry?

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: On 11/21/2014 09:35 AM, Alex Shulgin wrote: Hello, Here's an attempt to revive this patch. Yayy! Thank you. People might not like me for the suggestion, but I think we should simply always include a 'recovery.conf' in

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: On 11/21/2014 09:35 AM, Alex Shulgin wrote: Hello, Here's an attempt to revive this patch. Yayy! Thank you. People might not like me for

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Josh Berkus
On 11/24/2014 09:24 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: ... I don't honestly think we need a 4th method for promotion. this is not for promotion, this is to force postgres to start in recovery mode and read recovery configuration parameters. The main reason to want a we're in recovery file is for

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Alex Shulgin
Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Either way, from the code it is clear that we only stay in recovery if standby_mode is directly turned on. This makes the whole check for a specially named file unnecessary, IMO: we should just check the value of standby_mode (which is off by

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Alex Shulgin
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: only that you need to start in recovery mode to start replication Right, but my point is that having a trigger file *is not necessary for replication, only for PITR* -- and maybe not necessary even for PITR. That is, in a streaming replication

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-11-24 12:02:52 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: On 11/24/2014 09:24 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: ... I don't honestly think we need a 4th method for promotion. this is not for promotion, this is to force postgres to start in recovery mode and read recovery configuration parameters.

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Josh Berkus
On 11/24/2014 02:00 PM, Alex Shulgin wrote: Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: only that you need to start in recovery mode to start replication Right, but my point is that having a trigger file *is not necessary for replication, only for PITR* -- and maybe not necessary even for PITR.

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Alex Shulgin
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: Before I go into my ideas, though, what does the current patch do regarding non-replication PITR? It removes that $PGDATA/standby.enable trigger file it relies on to start the PITR in the first place. OK, and that's required for replication too? I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-24 Thread Josh Berkus
On 11/24/2014 02:18 PM, Alex Shulgin wrote: Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: Before I go into my ideas, though, what does the current patch do regarding non-replication PITR? It removes that $PGDATA/standby.enable trigger file it relies on to start the PITR in the first place. OK,

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-23 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-11-21 10:59:23 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: On 11/21/2014 10:54 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote: Either way, from the code it is clear that we only stay in recovery if standby_mode is directly turned on. This makes the whole check for a specially

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-21 Thread Alex Shulgin
Hello, Here's an attempt to revive this patch. It is rebased onto the latest master and also includes handling and documentation of newly added recovery.conf parameters such as primary_slot_name, recovery_min_apply_delay and recovery_target='immediate'. The following feedback had been

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-21 Thread Josh Berkus
On 11/21/2014 09:35 AM, Alex Shulgin wrote: Hello, Here's an attempt to revive this patch. Yayy! Thank you. People might not like me for the suggestion, but I think we should simply always include a 'recovery.conf' in $PGDATA unconditionally. That'd make this easier. Alternatively we

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-21 Thread Stephen Frost
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote: Either way, from the code it is clear that we only stay in recovery if standby_mode is directly turned on. This makes the whole check for a specially named file unnecessary, IMO: we should just check the value of standby_mode (which is off by

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-21 Thread Josh Berkus
On 11/21/2014 10:54 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote: Either way, from the code it is clear that we only stay in recovery if standby_mode is directly turned on. This makes the whole check for a specially named file unnecessary, IMO: we should just check the

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-11-21 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: * Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote: Either way, from the code it is clear that we only stay in recovery if standby_mode is directly turned on. This makes the whole check for a specially named file

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-06-04 Thread Josh Berkus
All, Can we get this patch going again for 9.5? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.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] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-06-04 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2014-06-04 16:32:33 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: Can we get this patch going again for 9.5? A patch gets going by somebody working on it. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-06-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 06/04/2014 04:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, On 2014-06-04 16:32:33 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: Can we get this patch going again for 9.5? A patch gets going by somebody working on it. Well yes, but it is also great to have someone remind others that it is of interest. JD

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-02-18 Thread Michael Paquier
This patch is in Waiting for Author for a couple of weeks and has received a review at least from Andres during this commit fest. As the situation is not much progressing, I am going to mark it as Returned with feedback. If there are any problems with that please let me know. Thanks, -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-01-23 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2014-01-15 02:00:51 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Hi, On 2013-11-15 22:38:05 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: sorry, i clearly misunderstood you. attached a rebased patch with those functions removed.

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-01-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: * Maybe we should rename names like pause_at_recovery_target

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2014-01-14 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: * Maybe we should rename names like pause_at_recovery_target to recovery_pause_at_target? Since we already force everyone to bother

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-11-20 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 2013-11-19 22:09:48 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: * I am not sure I like recovery.trigger as a name. It seems to close to what

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-11-20 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-11-19 22:24:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 2013-11-19 22:09:48 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: * Why did you change some of the recovery gucs to lowercase names,

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-11-20 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-11-20 08:10:44 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 2013-11-19 22:09:48 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: * I am not sure I like

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-11-19 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: * --write-standby-enable seems to loose quite some functionality in comparison to --write-recovery-conf since it doesn't seem to set primary_conninfo, standby anymore. Yes... The idea here might be to generate a

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-11-19 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-11-19 22:09:48 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: * --write-standby-enable seems to loose quite some functionality in comparison to --write-recovery-conf since it doesn't seem to set primary_conninfo,

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-11-19 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 2013-11-19 22:09:48 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: * Why did you change some of the recovery gucs to lowercase names, but left out XLogRestoreCommand? This was part

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-11-18 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2013-11-15 22:38:05 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: sorry, i clearly misunderstood you. attached a rebased patch with those functions removed. * --write-standby-enable seems to loose quite some functionality in comparison to --write-recovery-conf since it doesn't seem to set

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-11-15 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On 11/13/13, 12:17 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: I have rebased Michael Paquier's patch and did a few changes: * changed standby.enabled filename to recovery.trigger * make archive_command a SIGHUP parameter again * make

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-11-15 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 11/13/13, 12:17 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: I have rebased Michael Paquier's patch and did a few changes: * changed standby.enabled filename to recovery.trigger * make archive_command a SIGHUP parameter again * make restore_command a SIGHUP parameter * rename restore_command variable to

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-11-15 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: those are functions that are no longer used but Josh considered they could become useful before release. i can put them inside #ifdef _NOT_USED_ decorations or just remove them now and if/when we find some use for

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-11-15 Thread Josh Berkus
On 11/15/2013 06:38 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: Please check for compiler warnings in pg_basebackup: pg_basebackup.c:1109:1: warning: ‘escapeConnectionParameter’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] pg_basebackup.c:1168:1: warning: ‘escape_quotes’ defined but not used

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-21 Thread Josh Berkus
On 10/18/2013 02:36 PM, Andres Freund wrote: What will likely change first is Slony and Bucardo, who have a strong interest in dumping triggers and queues. But I don't understand what that has to do with recovery.conf and breakage around it. The simple thinking is this: if we announce and

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-21 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: On 10/18/2013 02:36 PM, Andres Freund wrote: What will likely change first is Slony and Bucardo, who have a strong interest in dumping triggers and queues. But I don't understand what that has to do with recovery.conf and

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-21 Thread Josh Berkus
Jaime, And, as I said before, we need to do the GUC merger in the same release we introduce configuration directory (or after it). you mean the ALTER SYSTEM syntax? anyway, why that restriction? No, I'm referring to the proposal to have an automatically created and included conf.d

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-21 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Jaime, And, as I said before, we need to do the GUC merger in the same release we introduce configuration directory (or after it). you mean the ALTER SYSTEM syntax? anyway, why that restriction? No, I'm referring to the

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-21 Thread Josh Berkus
9.3 has include_dir and postgresql.conf has this setted: #include_dir = 'conf.d' # include files ending in '.conf' from # directory 'conf.d' anything before this should be up to the packagers, no? or, do you mean something else? Well, I was just pointing

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-18 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: = Code functionality = + {restore_command, PGC_POSTMASTER, WAL_ARCHIVE_RECOVERY, + {archive_cleanup_command, PGC_POSTMASTER, WAL_ARCHIVE_RECOVERY, + {recovery_end_command, PGC_POSTMASTER,

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-18 Thread Josh Berkus
Jaime, Except that we'll want 9.4's -R to do something, probably create a file called conf.d/replication.conf. Mind you, it won't need the same wonky quoting stuff. Currently the patch uses -R to create the recovery trigger file Right, I'm saying that we'll want to do better than that

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-18 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: exactly as it is now, if it sees the recovery trigger file, then it starts ArchiveRecovery and after it finish delete the file (the only difference) and increment the timeline OK, so if I'm doing a PITR recovery, I just

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-18 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-10-18 09:32:15 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: For that matter, 9.4 is a very good time (relatively speaking) to break replication tools because the new logical replication is going to cause everyone to rev their tools anyway. We're hopefully getting changeset extraction in, but there's

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-18 Thread Josh Berkus
On 10/18/2013 12:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-10-18 09:32:15 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: For that matter, 9.4 is a very good time (relatively speaking) to break replication tools because the new logical replication is going to cause everyone to rev their tools anyway. We're hopefully

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-18 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-10-18 13:16:52 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-10-18 09:32:15 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: For that matter, 9.4 is a very good time (relatively speaking) to break replication tools because the new logical replication is going to cause

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-18 Thread Josh Berkus
On 10/18/2013 01:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-10-18 13:16:52 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: I thought changeset extraction was the only thing going into core? What else do we need? Well, I personally want more in core mid/long term, but anyway. I've lost track of the plan, then. Hmmm

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-18 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-10-18 14:16:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: On 10/18/2013 01:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-10-18 13:16:52 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: I thought changeset extraction was the only thing going into core? What else do we need? Well, I personally want more in core mid/long term,

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-18 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Jaime, well, after upgrade you should do checks. and even if it happens, after it happens once people will be aware of the change. now, some suggestions were made to avoid the problem. 1) read the file if exists last in

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-18 Thread Josh Berkus
On 10/18/2013 02:58 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote: well #3 just add a line in postgresql.conf (an include_if_exists) and current patch gives an error in case it finds the file (i'm suggesting to make it a warning instead). how does that makes our code more complicated? Well, that's a couple extra

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-17 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Jaime, = Building = In pg_basebackup we have now 2 unused functions: escapeConnectionParameter and escape_quotes. the only use of these functions was when that tool created the recovery.conf file so they aren't needed

Re: [HACKERS] Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

2013-10-16 Thread Josh Berkus
Jaime, = Building = In pg_basebackup we have now 2 unused functions: escapeConnectionParameter and escape_quotes. the only use of these functions was when that tool created the recovery.conf file so they aren't needed anymore. Except that we'll want 9.4's -R to do something, probably create