On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:00 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 02:21:44PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Just to be clear, although this patch is registered in the commitfest
> > and currently applies and tests pass, it is prototype/WIP code with
> > significant problems that rem
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 02:21:44PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Just to be clear, although this patch is registered in the commitfest
> and currently applies and tests pass, it is prototype/WIP code with
> significant problems that remain to be resolved. I sort of wish there
> were a way to indica
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:01 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 4:51 PM Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 7:29 AM Thomas Munro
> > wrote:
> > > I'll add it to the next Commitfest so I know when to rebase it.
> >
> > I signed up as reviewer in
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 2:29 PM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin, all,
>
> /me pokes ancient thread
This amazing feeling of being like Indiana Jones, thinking whether it's worth
it to touch another ancient artifact.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 4:51 PM Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 21,
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 7:29 AM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I'll add it to the next Commitfest so I know when to rebase it.
I signed up as reviewer in that CF.
--
Kevin Grittner
VMware vCenter Server
https://www.vmware.com/
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 12:28 AM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I'll add it to the next
> Commitfest so I know when to rebase it.
And cfbot immediately showed that this assertion in
OldSerXidSetActiveSerXmin() could fail in the isolation tests:
Assert(!TransactionIdIsValid(oldSerXidControl->tailXid)
Hi Kevin, all,
/me pokes ancient thread
I haven't done any more work on the problems mentioned above, but I
ran into Kevin at PostgresOpen in San Francisco and he said he might
have some time to look at this problem. So, here is a long overdue
rebase of the WIP patch. It shows a first order app
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I haven't looked at this again yet but a nearby thread reminded me of
>> another problem with this which I wanted to restate explicitly here in
>> the context of this patch. Even without replication in the picture,
>> there is a race to reach
On 19 January 2017 at 16:16, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Thomas Munro
>> wrote:
>> [..] Another solution
>> could be to have recovery on the standby detect tokens (CSNs
>> incremented by PreCommit_CheckForSerial
On 7 November 2016 at 23:56, Thomas Munro wrote:
> The patch works by teaching the standby how to do somethings similar
> to what SERIALIZABLE READ ONLY DEFERRABLE does on the primary server,
> with some help from the primary server in the form of extra
> information in the WAL.
This is going in
10 matches
Mail list logo
