Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-27 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 13:08 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > Was thinking that admin tools that show hot standby information might > also want to show the corresponding slave information (from the point > of view of the master). Well, the standby might be persuaded to know something about the maste

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-27 Thread Robert Treat
On Monday 27 October 2008 12:12:18 Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 11:42 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > > On Monday 20 October 2008 05:25:29 Simon Riggs wrote: > > > I'm looking to implement the following functions for Hot Standby, to > > > allow those with administrative tools or manageme

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-27 Thread Emmanuel Cecchet
Simon Riggs wrote: On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 11:42 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: On Monday 20 October 2008 05:25:29 Simon Riggs wrote: I'm looking to implement the following functions for Hot Standby, to allow those with administrative tools or management applications to have more control dur

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-27 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 11:42 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > On Monday 20 October 2008 05:25:29 Simon Riggs wrote: > > I'm looking to implement the following functions for Hot Standby, to > > allow those with administrative tools or management applications to have > > more control during recovery. Pl

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-27 Thread Robert Treat
On Monday 20 October 2008 05:25:29 Simon Riggs wrote: > I'm looking to implement the following functions for Hot Standby, to > allow those with administrative tools or management applications to have > more control during recovery. Please let me know if other functions are > required. > > What else

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 10:25 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > What else do we need? > * pg_freeze_recovery() > * pg_unfreeze_recovery() Two more functions pg_freeze_recovery_cleanup() pg_unfreeze_recovery_cleanup() These would allow recovery to continue normally, except for row removal operations

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-21 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 09:44 +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT wrote: > > > * pg_last_recovered_xact_xid() > > > Will throw an ERROR if *not* executed in recovery mode. > > > returns bigint > > > > > > * pg_last_completed_xact_xid() > > > Will throw an ERROR *if* executed in recovery mode. > > > r

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-21 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 18:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> In any case, do not use the wrong return type for the definition you're >> implementing. > err...Why would anyone do that? That's what I wanted to know ;-). If these functions are really going to retu

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-21 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT
> > * pg_last_recovered_xact_xid() > > Will throw an ERROR if *not* executed in recovery mode. > > returns bigint > > > > * pg_last_completed_xact_xid() > > Will throw an ERROR *if* executed in recovery mode. > > returns bigint > > Should these return xid? And shouldn't these two be folded togeth

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-21 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 18:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 17:44 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> That's been "extended with an epoch counter" per the docs; I don't think > >> that's appropriate for the new functions, is it? > > > I ass

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-20 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 17:44 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> That's been "extended with an epoch counter" per the docs; I don't think >> that's appropriate for the new functions, is it? > I assumed it was, so you can subtract them easily. > It can be done

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-20 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 17:44 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Simon Riggs escribió: > > > > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > * pg_last_recovered_xact_xid() > > > > Will throw an ERROR if *not* executed in recovery mode. > > > > returns bigint > > > > > > > > * pg_last_co

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Simon Riggs escribió: > > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > * pg_last_recovered_xact_xid() > > > Will throw an ERROR if *not* executed in recovery mode. > > > returns bigint > > > > > > * pg_last_completed_xact_xid() > > > Will throw an ERROR *if* executed in recovery mod

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-20 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > * pg_last_recovered_xact_xid() > > Will throw an ERROR if *not* executed in recovery mode. > > returns bigint > > > > * pg_last_completed_xact_xid() > > Will throw an ERROR *if* executed in recovery mode. > > returns bigint > > Should thes

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions

2008-10-20 Thread Robert Haas
> * pg_last_recovered_xact_xid() > Will throw an ERROR if *not* executed in recovery mode. > returns bigint > > * pg_last_completed_xact_xid() > Will throw an ERROR *if* executed in recovery mode. > returns bigint Should these return xid? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-