On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 14:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Small patch to set ps display during recovery, so we can see the current
WAL file being processed in both crash and archive recovery.
Hmm, not right there, because we don't know that the file actually
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 03:00:54PM +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Here is a patch to get memory management to thread-safe.
The auto_allocs global variable is split into per-thread variables
and accessed separately in each thread.
Thanks. Committed to CVS HEAD.
* Release all prepared
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 14:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hmm, not right there, because we don't know that the file actually
exists yet. Applied with modifications ...
Double hmmm, that means when we are waiting for file X in pg_standby the
ps display will
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 14:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hmm, not right there, because we don't know that the file actually
exists yet. Applied with modifications ...
Double hmmm, that means when we are
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Perhaps fetching XXX vs restoring XXX?
Not sure if I read you right, so one more time for clarity:
IMHO wording should be
restoring X before we send to archive to get file (archive only)
recovering X once we have the file (archive or not)
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Perhaps fetching XXX vs restoring XXX?
Not sure if I read you right, so one more time for clarity:
IMHO wording should be
restoring X before we send to archive to get file (archive only)
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 11:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Perhaps fetching XXX vs restoring XXX?
Not sure if I read you right, so one more time for clarity:
IMHO wording should be
restoring X before
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 11:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I like fetching or retrieving for
the activity of getting a WAL segment from an archive, because in cases
where the activity takes long enough to be noticeable, it's probably
because you are physically
On 9/29/07, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we need more than one person's request to add this function.
Well, I don't expect it would get requested. Most DBAs would likely
look for the function in the docs, see it's not there and then just
implement it themselves. Obviously
