On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:43 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 6:05 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025, at 8:44 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I would suggest putting the new max_active_replication_origins after
> > max_parallel_apply_workers_per_subscri
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:37 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:43 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 6:05 PM
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:37 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:43 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 6:05 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025, at 8:44 PM,
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:43 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 6:05 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025, at 8:44 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >
> > > I would suggest putting the new max_acti
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 6:05 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025, at 8:44 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I would suggest putting the new max_active_replication_origins after
> max_parallel_apply_workers_per_subscription as both
> max_sync_workers_per_subscription and
> max_parallel_ap
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025, at 8:44 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I would suggest putting the new max_active_replication_origins after
> max_parallel_apply_workers_per_subscription as both
> max_sync_workers_per_subscription and
> max_parallel_apply_workers_per_subscription are related to
> max_logical_re
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 5:55 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025, at 11:10 AM, vignesh C wrote:
>
> Few comments:
>
>
> Thanks for taking a look.
>
> 1) After selecting max_active_replication_origins setting in the
> SELECT query having order by, the first record returned will be the
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025, at 5:48 AM, vignesh C wrote:
> 1) Should we add a test case to verify that if
> max_active_replication_origins is set to -1, it will use
> max_replication_slots value:
I don't think so. I added the following assert to test exactly this condition.
if (max_active_repli
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 06:25, Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025, at 11:10 AM, vignesh C wrote:
>
> Few comments:
>
>
> Thanks for taking a look.
>
> 1) After selecting max_active_replication_origins setting in the
> SELECT query having order by, the first record returned will be the
>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025, at 11:10 AM, vignesh C wrote:
> Few comments:
Thanks for taking a look.
> 1) After selecting max_active_replication_origins setting in the
> SELECT query having order by, the first record returned will be the
> one with max_active_replication_origins, rather than the second
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 at 05:59, Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025, at 8:47 AM, vignesh C wrote:
>
> I reviewed the discussion on this thread and believe we now have an
> agreement on the design and GUC names. However, the patch still needs
> updates and extensive testing, especially cons
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 at 05:59, Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025, at 8:47 AM, vignesh C wrote:
>
> I reviewed the discussion on this thread and believe we now have an
> agreement on the design and GUC names. However, the patch still needs
> updates and extensive testing, especially cons
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025, at 8:47 AM, vignesh C wrote:
> I reviewed the discussion on this thread and believe we now have an
> agreement on the design and GUC names. However, the patch still needs
> updates and extensive testing, especially considering its impact on
> backward compatibility. I'm unsure
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 at 21:21, Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025, at 11:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Is that maximum active for the whole system, or maximum active per
> session, or maximum active per created origin, or some combination of these?
>
>
> It is a cluster-wide setting.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025, at 11:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Is that maximum active for the whole system, or maximum active per
> session, or maximum active per created origin, or some combination of these?
>
It is a cluster-wide setting. Similar to max_replication_slots. I will make
sure the GUC
On 07.03.25 04:51, Amit Kapila wrote:
I agree that the originally proposed name max_replication_origins is not
good, because you can "create" (using pg_replication_origin_create())
more than the configured maximum. What is the term for what the setting
actually controls? How many are "active"?
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 6:36 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025, at 6:55 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:38 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > On 11.02.25 21:25, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > > Here is another patch that only changes the GUC name to
> > > max_replicatio
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:38 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 11.02.25 21:25, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > Here is another patch that only changes the GUC name to
> > max_replication_origin_sessions.
>
> I think the naming and description of this is still confusing.
>
...
...
>
> I agree that the orig
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025, at 6:55 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:38 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > On 11.02.25 21:25, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > > Here is another patch that only changes the GUC name to
> > > max_replication_origin_sessions.
> >
> > I think the naming and descripti
On 11.02.25 21:25, Euler Taveira wrote:
Here is another patch that only changes the GUC name to
max_replication_origin_sessions.
I think the naming and description of this is still confusing.
What does this name mean? There is (I think) no such thing as a
"replication origin session". So wh
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 12:42 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 10:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 6:24 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 1, 2025, at 10:08 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 6:48 AM Masahiko Sawada
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 10:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 6:24 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 1, 2025, at 10:08 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 6:48 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for updating the patch! The patch look
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 6:24 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2025, at 10:08 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 6:48 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for updating the patch! The patch looks mostly good to me.
> >
>
> + /*
> + * Prior to PostgreSQL 18, max_repli
On Sat, Mar 1, 2025, at 10:08 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 6:48 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for updating the patch! The patch looks mostly good to me.
> >
>
> + /*
> + * Prior to PostgreSQL 18, max_replication_slots was used to set the
> + * number of replicati
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 6:48 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Thank you for updating the patch! The patch looks mostly good to me.
>
+ /*
+ * Prior to PostgreSQL 18, max_replication_slots was used to set the
+ * number of replication origins. For backward compatibility, -1 indicates
+ * to use the f
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 12:27 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025, at 9:49 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 4:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025, at 1:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 8:17 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025, at 9:49 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 4:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025, at 1:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 8:17 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
> > >
> > > Under reflection, an accurate name is
> > > max_replic
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 4:39 PM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025, at 1:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 8:17 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
> >
> > Under reflection, an accurate name is max_replication_origin_session_setup.
> > A
> > counter argument is that it is a long
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025, at 1:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 8:17 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
> >
> > Under reflection, an accurate name is max_replication_origin_session_setup.
> > A
> > counter argument is that it is a long name (top-5 length).
> >
> > postgres=# select n, length(n)
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 8:17 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> Under reflection, an accurate name is max_replication_origin_session_setup. A
> counter argument is that it is a long name (top-5 length).
>
> postgres=# select n, length(n) from (values('max_replication_origins'),
> ('max_tracked_replication
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025, at 8:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Here are some comments on v2 patch:
>
> ---
> /* Report this after the initial starting message for consistency. */
> - if (max_replication_slots == 0)
> + if (max_replication_origins == 0)
> ereport(ERR
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 7:39 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024, at 10:31 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 10.12.24 19:41, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > I'm attaching a patch that adds max_replication_origins. It basically
> > replaces
> > all of the points that refers to max_replication
Hi Euler,
As you may have already read, separating the max_replication_slots parameter
is also discussed in the following thread.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAA4eK1KF4MbyWmPj9ctNo8Fiei%3DK91RGYtzV5ELeCvR%3D_rqNgg%40mail.gmail.com#3012c5c18e40e
21ac553b42d53249e42
I agree with sep
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024, at 10:31 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 10.12.24 19:41, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > I'm attaching a patch that adds max_replication_origins. It basically
> > replaces
> > all of the points that refers to max_replication_slots on the subscriber. It
> > uses the same default val
On 10.12.24 19:41, Euler Taveira wrote:
I'm attaching a patch that adds max_replication_origins. It basically
replaces
all of the points that refers to max_replication_slots on the subscriber. It
uses the same default value as max_replication_slots (10). I did nothing to
keep the backward compat
35 matches
Mail list logo
