On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I'm not willing to investigate this further myself at this stage. This
looks like risk for little benefit.
That's kind of what I figured. I'll see
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I'm not willing to investigate this further myself at this stage. This
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you explain how to recreate the problem that this patch fixes?
1. Configure and start the primary server.
2. Configure the standby server.
3. Remove all of the WAL files in pg_xlog of the standby.
4. Start the
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
From what I have seen, the comment about PM_WAIT_BACKENDS is incorrect.
backends might be waiting for the WAL record that conflicts with their
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
From what I have seen, the comment about PM_WAIT_BACKENDS is incorrect.
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 06:48 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
From what I
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I'm not willing to investigate this further myself at this stage. This
looks like risk for little benefit.
That's kind of what I figured. I'll see about fixing up Fujii-san's
patch and documenting the behavior; but it
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 10:48 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I rebased the patch to HEAD. Is the patch still required for 9.0?
If not, I'd remove the
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Please add some docs that a) explains what the patch does and b) notes
any changes from behaviour in previous releases. ISTM this is a major
change in behaviour.
How about adding the following description into 17.5.
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 17:48 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Please add some docs that a) explains what the patch does and b) notes
any changes from behaviour in previous releases. ISTM this is a major
change in behaviour.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 17:48 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Please add some docs that a) explains what the patch does and b) notes
any changes from
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Please add some docs that a) explains what the patch does and b) notes
any changes from behaviour in previous releases. ISTM this is a major
change in behaviour.
I guess I see this a little bit differently. If you do a
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
From what I have seen, the comment about PM_WAIT_BACKENDS is incorrect.
backends might be waiting for the WAL record that conflicts with their
queries to be replayed. Recovery sometimes waits for backends, but
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I rebased the patch to HEAD. Is the patch still required for 9.0?
If not, I'd remove the open item of the smart shutdown during
recovery.
I am by no means an expert on this area of the code, but in the
interest of moving
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I rebased the patch to HEAD. Is the patch still required for 9.0?
If not, I'd remove the open item of the smart shutdown during
recovery.
I am
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I rebased the patch to HEAD. Is the patch still required for 9.0?
If
16 matches
Mail list logo
