On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 4:13 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Great! Should we mark the corresponding v17 open item as closed?
Done.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 4:11 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 1:09 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > Committed this version to master and v17.
> >
> > Thanks for taking care of this.
>
> Sure thing!
>
> I knew it was going to confuse someone ... I just wasn't sure what to
> do about it.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 1:09 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > Committed this version to master and v17.
>
> Thanks for taking care of this.
Sure thing!
I knew it was going to confuse someone ... I just wasn't sure what to
do about it. Now we've at least done something, which is hopefully
superior to n
On Thu, 2024-07-25 at 16:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 8:51 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > The attached patch uses your wording for the first sentence.
> >
> > I left out the last sentence from your suggestion, because it sounded
> > like it is likely to confuse the reader.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 8:51 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> The attached patch uses your wording for the first sentence.
>
> I left out the last sentence from your suggestion, because it sounded
> like it is likely to confuse the reader. I think you just wanted to
> say that there are other possible ca
On Wed, 2024-07-24 at 15:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 6:46 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > An incremental backup is only possible if replay would begin from a later
> > checkpoint than the checkpoint that started the previous backup upon
> > which
> > it depends.
>
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 6:46 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> An incremental backup is only possible if replay would begin from a later
> checkpoint than the checkpoint that started the previous backup upon which
> it depends.
My concern here is that the previous backup might have been taken on a
s
On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 09:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 6:07 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > Here is a patch.
> > I went for both the errhint and some documentation.
>
> Hmm, the hint doesn't end up using the word "standby" anywhere. That
> seems like it might not be optimal?
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:05 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Before I write a v2, a small question for clarification:
> I believe I remember that during my experiments, I ran CHECKPOINT
> on the standby server between the first backup and the incremental
> backup, and that was not enough to make it work.
On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 09:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> How about something like this:
>
> An incremental backup is only possible if replay would begin from a
> later checkpoint than for the previous backup upon which it depends.
> On the primary, this condition is always satisfied, because each
>
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 6:07 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Here is a patch.
> I went for both the errhint and some documentation.
Hmm, the hint doesn't end up using the word "standby" anywhere. That
seems like it might not be optimal?
+Like a base backup, you can take an incremental backup from a
On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 07:01:04AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> The WAL summarizer is running on the standby server, but when I try
> to take an incremental backup, I get an error that I understand to mean
> that WAL summarizing hasn't caught up yet.
Added an open item for this one.
--
Michael
On Fri, 2024-07-19 at 16:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 2:41 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > I'd be alright with the hint, but I'd say "during making an *incremental*
> > standby backup", because that's the only case where it can happen.
> >
> > I think it would also be suffici
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 2:41 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> I'd be alright with the hint, but I'd say "during making an *incremental*
> standby backup", because that's the only case where it can happen.
>
> I think it would also be sufficient if we document that possibility.
> When I got the error, I lo
On Fri, 2024-07-19 at 12:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Thanks for looking at this.
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 11:32 AM David Steele wrote:
> > I think it would be enough just to add a hint such as:
> >
> > HINT: this is possible when making a standby backup with little or no
> > activity.
>
> Tha
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 11:32 AM David Steele wrote:
> I think it would be enough just to add a hint such as:
>
> HINT: this is possible when making a standby backup with little or no
> activity.
That could work (with "this" capitalized).
> My guess is in production environments this will be unc
On 7/19/24 21:52, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:27 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
On Sat, 2024-06-29 at 07:01 +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
I played around with incremental backup yesterday and tried $subject
The WAL summarizer is running on the standby server, but when I try
to take an
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:27 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-06-29 at 07:01 +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > I played around with incremental backup yesterday and tried $subject
> >
> > The WAL summarizer is running on the standby server, but when I try
> > to take an incremental backup, I ge
On Sat, 2024-06-29 at 07:01 +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> I played around with incremental backup yesterday and tried $subject
>
> The WAL summarizer is running on the standby server, but when I try
> to take an incremental backup, I get an error that I understand to mean
> that WAL summarizing
19 matches
Mail list logo
