On 20/11/2020 19:14, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2020-11-20 16:19:03 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Pushed a fix similar to your patch, but I put the wait_for_catchup() before
running pg_rewind. The point of inserting the 'in A, after C was promoted'
row is that it's present in B when pg_rewi
Hi,
On 2020-11-20 16:19:03 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Pushed a fix similar to your patch, but I put the wait_for_catchup() before
> running pg_rewind. The point of inserting the 'in A, after C was promoted'
> row is that it's present in B when pg_rewind runs.
Hm - don't we possibly need *
On 20/11/2020 02:38, Andres Freund wrote:
I locally, on a heavily modified branch (AIO support), started to get
consistent failures in this test. I *suspect*, but am not sure, that
it's the test's fault, not the fault of modifications.
As far as I can tell, after the pg_rewind call, there's no g
Hi,
On 2020-11-15 17:10:53 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Yep, quite right. Fixed that way, thanks for the debugging!
I locally, on a heavily modified branch (AIO support), started to get
consistent failures in this test. I *suspect*, but am not sure, that
it's the test's fault, not the fault
On 15/11/2020 09:07, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Not sure if you noticed, but piculet has twice failed the
007_standby_source.pl test that was added by 9c4f5192f:
...
Now, I'm not sure what to make of that, but I can't help noticing that
piculet uses --disable-atomics while francolin uses --disable
I wrote:
> Not sure if you noticed, but piculet has twice failed the
> 007_standby_source.pl test that was added by 9c4f5192f:
> ...
> Now, I'm not sure what to make of that, but I can't help noticing that
> piculet uses --disable-atomics while francolin uses --disable-spinlocks.
> That leads the m
Not sure if you noticed, but piculet has twice failed the
007_standby_source.pl test that was added by 9c4f5192f:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=piculet&dt=2020-11-15%2006%3A00%3A11
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=piculet&dt=2020-11-13%2011%3A20%3A1
On 04/11/2020 11:23, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I read through the patches one more time, fixed a bunch of typos and
such, and pushed patches 1-4. I'm going to spend some more time on
testing the last patch. It allows using a standby server as the source,
and we don't have any tests for that yet.
On 25/09/2020 02:56, Soumyadeep Chakraborty wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:27 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
7. Please address the FIXME for the symlink case:
/* FIXME: Check if it points to the same target? */
It's not a new issue. Would be nice to fix, of course. I'm not sure what
the righ
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:27 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> /*
> >> * If this is a relation file, copy the modified blocks.
> >> *
> >> * This is in addition to any other changes.
> >> */
> >> iter = datapagemap_iterate(&entry->target_modified_pages);
> >> while (datapagemap_next(iter,
On 20/09/2020 23:44, Soumyadeep Chakraborty wrote:
Before getting into the code review for the patch, I wanted to know why
we don't use a Bitmapset for target_modified_pages?
Bitmapset is not available in client code. Perhaps it could be moved to
src/common with some changes, but doesn't seem
Thanks for the review! I'll post a new version shortly, with your
comments incorporated. More detailed response to a few of them below:
On 18/09/2020 10:41, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
I don't think filemap_finalize needs to iterate over filemap twice.
True, but I thought it's more clear that wa
Hey Heikki,
Thanks for refactoring and making the code much easier to read!
Before getting into the code review for the patch, I wanted to know why
we don't use a Bitmapset for target_modified_pages?
Code review:
1. We need to update the comments for process_source_file and
process_target_file
Hello.
It needed rebasing. (Attached)
At Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:32:02 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote
in
> On 20/08/2020 11:32, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > 0002: Rewording that old->target and new->source makes the meaning far
>
> Good idea! I changed the patch that way.
Looks Good.
> > 0003:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 04:32:02PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 20/08/2020 11:32, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > 0002: Rewording that old->target and new->source makes the meaning far
> > clearer. Moving decisions core code into filemap_finalize is
> > reasonable.
> >
> > By th
On 20/08/2020 11:32, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
0002: Rewording that old->target and new->source makes the meaning far
clearer. Moving decisions core code into filemap_finalize is
reasonable.
By the way, some of the rules are remaining in
process_source/target_file. For example,
Hello.
At Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:50:16 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote
in
> Hi,
>
> I started to hack on making pg_rewind crash-safe (see [1]), but I
> quickly got side-tracked into refactoring and tidying up up the code
> in general. I ended up with this series of patches:
^^;
> The first four
17 matches
Mail list logo
