On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 18:20 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 11.11.2010 02:20, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > There is a problem with this patch. ReadRecord() not only modifies
> > global variables, it also modifies the location pointed to by "record",
> > which is later used to set "wasShutdown". How
On 11.11.2010 02:20, Jeff Davis wrote:
There is a problem with this patch. ReadRecord() not only modifies
global variables, it also modifies the location pointed to by "record",
which is later used to set "wasShutdown". How about if we only set
"wasShutdown" if there is no backup_label (because t
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 10:48 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > The reason I didn't use ReadRecord is because it sets a global variable
> > to point to the next location in the log, so that subsequent calls can
> > just pass NULL for the location.
>
> True. XLogPageRead is new in 9.0, however. We
On 26.10.2010 10:48, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 25.10.2010 19:04, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 14:44 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
It seems we should use ReadRecord instead of the lower-level
XLogPageRead function. One difference is that ReadRecord performs a
bunch of sanity che
On 25.10.2010 19:04, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 14:44 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
It seems we should use ReadRecord instead of the lower-level
XLogPageRead function. One difference is that ReadRecord performs a
bunch of sanity checks on the record, while XLogPageRead just reads
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 14:44 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> It seems we should use ReadRecord instead of the lower-level
> XLogPageRead function. One difference is that ReadRecord performs a
> bunch of sanity checks on the record, while XLogPageRead just reads the
> raw page. Extra sanity che
On 19.10.2010 22:40, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 09:51 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 12:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Excluding pg_xlog is just a recommendation at the moment, though, so we
would need a big warning in the docs. And some way to enforce that
jus
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> The fundamental problem is that by definition, a base backup is completely
> indistinguishable from the data directory in the original server. Or is it?
> We recommend that you exclude the files under pg_xlog from the backup. So we
> cou
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 09:51 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 12:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Excluding pg_xlog is just a recommendation at the moment, though, so we
> > would need a big warning in the docs. And some way to enforce that
> > just_kidding is not included i
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 12:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >1. If reading a checkpoint from the backup_label location, verify that
> > the REDO location for that checkpoint exists in addition to the
> > checkpoint itself. If not, elog with a FATAL immediately.
>
> Makes sense. I wonder if
On 18.10.2010 01:48, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 15:58 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
I don't have a fix yet, because I think it requires a little discussion.
For instance, it seems to be dangerous to assume that we're starting up
from a backup with access to the archive when it might have
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 19.10.2010 08:51, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> Do users have any expectation that they can restore a backup without
> using recovery.conf by merely having the WAL segment
On 19.10.2010 08:51, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
Do users have any expectation that they can restore a backup without
using recovery.conf by merely having the WAL segments in pg_xlog?
I would expect that to work.
What's the use case?
Creating a st
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> > Do users have any expectation that they can restore a backup without
>> > using recovery.conf by merely having the WAL segments in pg_xlog?
>>
>> I would expect that to work.
What's the use case?
> If that's the expectation, I believe my or
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 17:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 17:02 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> Yep, to automatically delete backup_label and continue recovery seems to be
> >> dangerous. How about just emitting FATAL error
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 17:02 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Yep, to automatically delete backup_label and continue recovery seems to be
>> dangerous. How about just emitting FATAL error when neither restore_command
>> nor primary_conninfo is suppli
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 17:02 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Yep, to automatically delete backup_label and continue recovery seems to be
> dangerous. How about just emitting FATAL error when neither restore_command
> nor primary_conninfo is supplied and backup_label exists? This seems to be
> simpler th
>> Send a SIGQUIT to the postmaster to simulate a crash. When you bring it
>> back up, it thinks it is recovering from a backup, so it reads
>> backup_label. The checkpoint for the backup label is in 00...6, so it
>> reads that just fine. But then it tries to read the WAL starting at the
>> redo lo
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 15:58 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I don't have a fix yet, because I think it requires a little discussion.
> For instance, it seems to be dangerous to assume that we're starting up
> from a backup with access to the archive when it might have been a crash
> of the primary syste
19 matches
Mail list logo
