This patch implements the protocol Tom suggested for writing to the
syslogger pipe. It seems to pass my tests (basically "make installcheck"
against a server with stderr redirection turned on and log_statement set
to 'all').
The effect of this should be to prevent two problems:
. partial mes
and here's the patch
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
This patch implements the protocol Tom suggested for writing to the
syslogger pipe. It seems to pass my tests (basically "make
installcheck" against a server with stderr redirection turned on and
log_statement set to 'all').
The effect of this s
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > No, I meant a "while (sleep 1(or 10) and counter < longtime) check for
> > > exit" instead of "sleep longtime".
> >
> > Ah; yes, what I was proposing (or thought about proposing, not sure if I
> > posted it or not) was
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This patch implements the protocol Tom suggested for writing to the
>> syslogger pipe. It seems to pass my tests (basically "make
>> installcheck" against a server with stderr redirection turned on and
>> log_statement set to 'all').
I didn't like t
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This patch implements the protocol Tom suggested for writing to the
syslogger pipe. It seems to pass my tests (basically "make
installcheck" against a server with stderr redirection turned on and
log_statement set to 'all').
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah, what I did was to wind back the chunk size - try 128 and you'll
> see plenty of chunked messages :-) But we really need to do this with
> installcheck-parallel to exercise it properly.
Doh, of course. I ran installcheck-parallel with log_statem
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yeah, what I did was to wind back the chunk size - try 128 and you'll
see plenty of chunked messages :-) But we really need to do this with
installcheck-parallel to exercise it properly.
Doh, of course. I ran installcheck-p
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> [confused...] How do you envision proceeding exactly?
> Never mind, if you're happy adapting and applying this right away to
> back branches then I'm happy too. I just didn't want to have to wait
> much before I start work on the CS
Tom Lane wrote:
Actually, I was hoping you'd adapt/apply to the back branches ;-)
curses! foiled again!
OK, will do.
cheers
andrew
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map set
