Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2012-04-10 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 04/10/2012 09:40 AM, Robert Haas wrote: parallel pg_dump - I think this one needs to get moved to the first 9.3 CommitFest. There is more work to be done there than we can realistically do right now, but I think we can pick it up for the next cycle. Yeah, I'm only about 1/4 of the way

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2012-04-10 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Looking over the remaining patches that still aren't closed in the January CommitFest: [ all but ECPG readahead and maybe libpq URIs have to go to 9.3 ] Yeah, I agree. I'm not comfortable with squeezing in the array foreign keys stuff at this point,

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2012-04-10 Thread Michael Meskes
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:40:58AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: ECPG FETCH readahead - Michael Meskes is going to commit this soon; everyone seems to agree it's ready to go. It still needs a couple minor tweaks but I think it will be done shortly. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2012-04-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar abr 10 10:40:58 -0300 2012: URI connection string support for libpq - I'm unclear with Alvaro or Peter still intend to try to slip this one in. It's simple enough that I think that would be OK if it can be done in the next day or two. Otherwise,

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-26 Thread Josh Berkus
That would be nice; I'm basically abusing syncrep to this purpose. At the same time, someone may need to be notified of such a switchover occurring, and in event of failure, it'd be nice to bounce back to the primary. Tangentially relevent, Virtual IP is not always an option, such as on

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-25 Thread Daniel Farina
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Robert Haas wrote: 2. Synchronous replication.  Splitting up this patch has allowed some On top of 4 listed reviewers I know Dan Farina is poking at the last update, so we may see one more larger report on top of what's

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-25 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Robert Haas wrote: 2. Synchronous replication.  Splitting up this patch has allowed some On top of 4 listed reviewers I know Dan Farina is poking at

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-25 Thread marcin mank
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote: Right now, as it stands, the syncrep patch will be happy as soon as the data has been fsynced to either B or A-prime; I don't think we can guarantee at any point that A-prime can become the leader, and feed B. - start A`

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-25 Thread Daniel Farina
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:25 AM, marcin mank marcin.m...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote: Right now, as it stands, the syncrep patch will be happy as soon as the data has been fsynced to either B or A-prime; I don't think we can

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-25 Thread Daniel Farina
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Robert Haas wrote: 2. Synchronous replication.  Splitting up this patch

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-25 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote: I know I got hit by a backend synchronization (in the sense of locks, etc) bugs; do you think it is possible yours (sending SIGSTOP) could be the same root cause? I haven't followed all the other bugs cleared up by

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-25 Thread Josh Berkus
Right now, as it stands, the syncrep patch will be happy as soon as the data has been fsynced to either B or A-prime; I don't think we can guarantee at any point that A-prime can become the leader, and feed B. Yeah, I think that's something we said months ago is going to be a 9.2 feature, no

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-25 Thread Daniel Farina
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Right now, as it stands, the syncrep patch will be happy as soon as the data has been fsynced to either B or A-prime; I don't think we can guarantee at any point that A-prime can become the leader, and feed B. Yeah, I

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-25 Thread Josh Berkus
Daniel, Ah, okay, I had missed that discussion, I also did not know it got so specific as to address this case (are you sure?) rather than something more general, say quorum or N-safe durability. The way we address that case is through n-safe durability. The user may have their own level of

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-25 Thread Daniel Farina
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Daniel, Ah, okay, I had missed that discussion, I also did not know it got so specific as to address this case (are you sure?) rather than something more general, say quorum or N-safe durability. The way we address that

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-25 Thread Jeff Davis
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 15:44 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: Hmmm, I don't follow this. The user can only disable syncrep for their own transactions. If they don't care about the persistence of their transaction post-failover, why should the DBA care? I think that's the difference between failover

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-25 Thread Josh Berkus
On 2/25/11 4:57 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 15:44 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: Hmmm, I don't follow this. The user can only disable syncrep for their own transactions. If they don't care about the persistence of their transaction post-failover, why should the DBA care? I

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-25 Thread Daniel Farina
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: On 2/25/11 4:57 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 15:44 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: Hmmm, I don't follow this.  The user can only disable syncrep for their own transactions.   If they don't care about the persistence

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: The CommitFest application currently reflects 17 remaining patches for CommitFest 2011-01. Now we're down to 12. As usual, the last few patches take the longest... 1. Change pg_last_xlog_receive_location not to move

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié feb 23 14:54:02 -0300 2011: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: 16. synchronized snapshots.  Alvaro is working on this one. Lots of discussion of this one, but current status is not clear to me. Alvaro, are

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié feb 23 14:54:02 -0300 2011: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: 16. synchronized snapshots.  Alvaro is working on this one. Lots

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié feb 23 15:14:04 -0300 2011: On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié feb 23 14:54:02 -0300 2011: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié feb 23 15:14:04 -0300 2011: On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié feb 23 14:54:02

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-23 Thread Greg Smith
Robert Haas wrote: 2. Synchronous replication. Splitting up this patch has allowed some This has gotten a bunch of review, on several different threads. I assume Simon will publish an update when he gets back to his keyboard... That was the idea. If anyone has any serious concerns

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-18 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: 3, 4, 5. SQL/MED. Tom has picked up the main FDW API patch, which I expect means it'll go in. I am not so sure about the FDW patches, though: in particular, based on Heikki's comments, the postgresql_fdw patch seems to be badly in need of some more

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-18 Thread Josh Berkus
On 2/18/11 2:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote: The CommitFest application currently reflects 17 remaining patches for CommitFest 2011-01. I'm impressed, actually. This is way further along than I expected us to be. -- -- Josh Berkus

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-18 Thread Josh Berkus
On 2/18/11 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: postgresql_fdw may have to live as an external project for the 9.1 cycle, unless it's in much better shape than you suggest above. I won't feel too bad about that as long as the core support exists. More than likely, people would want to improve it on a

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 02/18/2011 05:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote: 3, 4, 5. SQL/MED. Tom has picked up the main FDW API patch, which I expect means it'll go in. I am not so sure about the FDW patches, though: in particular, based on Heikki's comments, the postgresql_fdw patch seems to be badly in need of some more

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-18 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: On 2/18/11 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: postgresql_fdw may have to live as an external project for the 9.1 cycle, unless it's in much better shape than you suggest above. I won't feel too bad about that as long as the core support exists. More than likely,

Re: [HACKERS] disposition of remaining patches

2011-02-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: FWIW, my thought is to try to get the API patch committed and then do the file_fdw patch.  Maybe I'm hopelessly ASCII-centric, but I do not see encoding considerations as a blocking factor for this.  If we define that files