On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:11 PM, David Steele wrote:
> On 12/29/17 6:49 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 06:21:46PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Michael Paquier <
> michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Could you update the patch
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 06:21:46PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I thought I had, but I can see now that email was a figment of my
> > imagination :)
>
> I'll take that as a fragment instead.
Not at all ... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/figment
"somethin
On 12/29/17 6:49 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 06:21:46PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> Could you update the patch?
>>
>> I thought I had, but I can see now that email was a figment of my
>> imagination :)
>
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 06:21:46PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Could you update the patch?
>
> I thought I had, but I can see now that email was a figment of my
> imagination :)
I'll take that as a fragment instead. The patch as pr
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:46:15PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Michael Paquier <
> michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> I think that the call to pgstat_report_activity in WalSndLoop() should
> >
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:46:15PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> I think that the call to pgstat_report_activity in WalSndLoop() should
>> be kept as well. There is a small gap between the moment the process
>> is started and the first
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> > Yes. Of course. I can't read. That's the same as the notice below about
> it
> > not returning false -- I mana
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> Yes. Of course. I can't read. That's the same as the notice below about it
> not returning false -- I managed to miss the extra if() there, and thought
> it always exited with ER
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> PFA a patch that fixes this. I think this is bugfix-for-backpatch, I don't
> think it has a large risk of breaking things. Thoughts?
Agreed. As long as it doesn't show up as idle-in-transaction afterwards
or something odd like that, it should be okay to backpatch. (I su
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > What about the attached?
>
> The new positions look good to me, still aren't you missing the case
> where a SQL command is found and exec_replication_command returns
> false?
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> What about the attached?
The new positions look good to me, still aren't you missing the case
where a SQL command is found and exec_replication_command returns
false? This should be switched to idle as well.
+ /* Report to pgstat that t
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:50 PM, David Steele
> wrote:
> > On 12/19/17 4:56 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> AFAICT, base backups running on the replication protocol are always
> >> reported as "idle" in pg_stat_activity. This seems to ha
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:50 PM, David Steele wrote:
> On 12/19/17 4:56 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> AFAICT, base backups running on the replication protocol are always
>> reported as "idle" in pg_stat_activity. This seems to have been an
>> oversight in the "include walsender backends in pg_sta
Hi Magnus,
On 12/19/17 4:56 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> AFAICT, base backups running on the replication protocol are always
> reported as "idle" in pg_stat_activity. This seems to have been an
> oversight in the "include walsender backends in pg_stat_activity" in 10,
> which does include it for w
AFAICT, base backups running on the replication protocol are always
reported as "idle" in pg_stat_activity. This seems to have been an
oversight in the "include walsender backends in pg_stat_activity" in 10,
which does include it for walsenders in general, just not for the ones
sending base backups
15 matches
Mail list logo