On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Committed. Thanks!
>
> Thank you!
Thanks all. I can see that I have been credited as author as well,
though it seems to me that I played mainly a reviewer role.
--
Michael
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Michael Paquier
wrot
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> +1 from me.
>
> Works for me, too, although I still don't really follow how it's
> happening in the present coding.
Craig has mentioned at least one way upthread:
https://www.post
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> +1 from me.
Works for me, too, although I still don't really follow how it's
happening in the present coding.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>>> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
I would just write "To
avoid calling CHECK_FOR_INTE
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> I would just write "To
>>> avoid calling CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS which can happen when releasing a
>>> LWLock" and be done wi
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> After off-discussion with Fujii-san, I've updated the comment of why
>>> we should disallow interrupts before setting/cl
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> After off-discussion with Fujii-san, I've updated the comment of why
>> we should disallow interrupts before setting/cleanup the session-level
>> lock. Please review it.
>
> +
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> After off-discussion with Fujii-san, I've updated the comment of why
> we should disallow interrupts before setting/cleanup the session-level
> lock. Please review it.
+ /*
+* Set session-level lock. If we allow interrupts bef
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>>> wrote:
Thank you for comments. Attached updated patch.
>>>
>>
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> Thank you for comments. Attached updated patch.
>>
>> I see that Michael has marked this Ready for Committer, but also
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> Thank you for comments. Attached updated patch.
>
> I see that Michael has marked this Ready for Committer, but also that
> he didn't update the thread, so perhaps some interested c
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for comments. Attached updated patch.
I see that Michael has marked this Ready for Committer, but also that
he didn't update the thread, so perhaps some interested committer
(Fujii Masao?) might have missed the fact that Michael
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> You could just add "as this allows to keep backup counters kept in
>>> shared memory consistent with the state o
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> You could just add "as this allows to keep backup counters kept in
>> shared memory consistent with the state of the session starting or
>> stopping a backup.".
>
> Thank you for
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> I agree with your approach. It makes sense to me.
>>>
>>> Attached updated patch. Please review it.
>>
>> Thanks for up
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> I agree with your approach. It makes sense to me.
>>
>> Attached updated patch. Please review it.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch! The patch basically looks good to me.
I am not
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
+ /*
+* Quick exit if session is no
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> + /*
>>> +* Quick exit if session is not keeping around a non-exclusive backup
>>> +* already started.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> + /*
>> +* Quick exit if session is not keeping around a non-exclusive backup
>> +* already started.
>> +*/
>> + if (sessionBackupState != SESSION_BACKUP_NON_EXCL
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> Agreed. Attached the updated patch, please review it.
Thank you for the comment.
> + /*
> +* Quick exit if session is not keeping around a non-exclusive backup
> +*
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Agreed. Attached the updated patch, please review it.
+ /*
+* Quick exit if session is not keeping around a non-exclusive backup
+* already started.
+*/
+ if (sessionBackupState != SESSION_BACKUP_NON_EXCLUSIVE)
+ ret
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>>> wrote:
I think we need to check only sessionBackupSt
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> I think we need to check only sessionBackupState and don't need to
>>> check XLogCtl->Insert.exclusiveBackupStat
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> I think we need to check only sessionBackupState and don't need to
>> check XLogCtl->Insert.exclusiveBackupState in do_pg_abort_backup(). We
>> can quickly return if sessionBac
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I think we need to check only sessionBackupState and don't need to
> check XLogCtl->Insert.exclusiveBackupState in do_pg_abort_backup(). We
> can quickly return if sessionBackupState !=
> SESSION_BACKUP_NON_EXCLUSIVE. In your suggestion, I
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 2017 2:59 AM, "Fujii Masao" wrote:
>>> + /* Quick exit if we have done the backup */
>>> + if (XLogCtl->Insert.exclusiveBackupState == EXCLUSIVE_BACKUP_NONE)
>>> +
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 2017 2:59 AM, "Fujii Masao" wrote:
>> + /* Quick exit if we have done the backup */
>> + if (XLogCtl->Insert.exclusiveBackupState == EXCLUSIVE_BACKUP_NONE)
>> + return;
>>
>> This quick exit seems to cause another problem. Plea
Thank you for the reviewing!
On Nov 15, 2017 2:59 AM, "Fujii Masao" wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>>> I have a question. Since WALInsertLockR
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> I have a question. Since WALInsertLockRelease seems not to call
>>> LWLockWaitForVar I thought you wanted to mean
33 matches
Mail list logo
