On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:48 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Oh, scratch that --- looking closer, I see that the only two use-cases in
> the patched code are via before_shmem_exit and PG_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP,
> and both of those require a function with the signature of an on_exit
> callback.
Yeah, that's wh
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 07:43:43AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:36 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
>> If pg_abort_backup callback function can be called safely even when
>> the backup is not in progress, we can just use the global variable like
>> pg_abort_backup_registered to regi
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:36 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> If pg_abort_backup callback function can be called safely even when
> the backup is not in progress, we can just use the global variable like
> pg_abort_backup_registered to register the callback function only
> on first call. In this way, canc
At Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:48:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
> I wrote:
> > Took a quick look. I agree that this seems a lot cleaner than the
> > alternative proposals. I'd suggest however that the header comment
> > for do_pg_abort_backup could do with more work, perhaps along the
> > lines of "The o
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:19 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 6:40 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > So that's how you prevent piling up multiple registrations of this
> > callback compared to v1. FWIW, I think that it is a cleaner approach
> > to remove the callback once a non-exc
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 6:40 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> So that's how you prevent piling up multiple registrations of this
> callback compared to v1. FWIW, I think that it is a cleaner approach
> to remove the callback once a non-exclusive backup is done, because a
> session has no need for it o
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:52:05PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 8:38 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>> Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition to my original fix,
>> except for the fact that I included a bug in it, I'm going to go see
>> about getting that committed.
>
> Perha
I wrote:
> Took a quick look. I agree that this seems a lot cleaner than the
> alternative proposals. I'd suggest however that the header comment
> for do_pg_abort_backup could do with more work, perhaps along the
> lines of "The odd-looking signature allows this to be registered
> directly as a
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:05 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Perhaps I spoke too soon: I'm not sure whether Michael's comments
> > amount to an objection. While I give him a chance to respond, here's
> > an updated patch.
>
> Took a quick look. I agree that this seems a lot cleaner
Robert Haas writes:
> Perhaps I spoke too soon: I'm not sure whether Michael's comments
> amount to an objection. While I give him a chance to respond, here's
> an updated patch.
Took a quick look. I agree that this seems a lot cleaner than the
alternative proposals. I'd suggest however that th
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 8:38 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition to my original fix,
> except for the fact that I included a bug in it, I'm going to go see
> about getting that committed.
Perhaps I spoke too soon: I'm not sure whether Michael's comments
amount to
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:00 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Agreed, that's an issue and do_pg_abort_abort should not touch
> sessionBackupState, so you should keep cancel_before_shmem_exit after
> pg_stop_backup().
I don't understand this comment, because that can't possibly work. It
assumes either
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:31 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> The patch can cause removal of a wrong cleanup function on non-cassert
> build. That might be unwanted. But I think the assertion is needed
> anyway.
I agree with the first part of this critique, but not necessarily with
the second part.
At Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:11:55 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:46:03 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
> in
> PREPARE. The attached does that and changes the if condition of
> cancel_before_shmem_exit into assertion.
The patch can cause removal of a wrong cleanup functi
At Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:46:03 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
in
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:19 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 8:44 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > > However I don't object to the restriction, couldn't we allow the
> > > cancel_before_shmem_exit to search for
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:19 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 8:44 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > However I don't object to the restriction, couldn't we allow the
> > cancel_before_shmem_exit to search for the given entry looping over
> > the before_shmem_exit array? If we don
On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 8:44 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> However I don't object to the restriction, couldn't we allow the
> cancel_before_shmem_exit to search for the given entry looping over
> the before_shmem_exit array? If we don't do that, an assrtion is needed
> instead.
>
> Since pg_stop_b
At Fri, 13 Dec 2019 18:50:25 -0500, David Steele wrote in
> On 12/13/19 3:56 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 9:00 AM Michael Paquier > think that's a bad idea to put a restriction of this kind. There
> > are large consumers of 2PC, and everybody needs backups.
> > You
On 12/13/19 3:56 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 9:00 AM Michael Paquier
I think that's a bad idea to put a restriction of this kind. There
are large consumers of 2PC, and everybody needs backups.
You misunderstood me. I certainly didn't mean that people who use 2PC
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 9:00 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 5:58 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi <
> horikyota@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > My first reaction would be to just disallow the combination of prepared
> >
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 5:58 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
>> The direction seems reasonable, but the patch doesn't free up the
>> before_shmem_exec slot nor avoid duplicate registration of the
>> callback. Actually before_shmem_ex
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 5:58 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> Hello.
>
> At Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:32:05 -0500, Robert Haas
> wrote in
> > While reviewing the first patch in Asif Rehman's series of patches for
> > parallel backup over at
> >
> http://postgr.es/m/CADM=Jeg3ZN+kPQpiSfeWCXr=xgplrq4cbqe5zv
Hello.
At Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:32:05 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
in
> While reviewing the first patch in Asif Rehman's series of patches for
> parallel backup over at
> http://postgr.es/m/CADM=Jeg3ZN+kPQpiSfeWCXr=xgplrq4cbqe5zviuxygkq3v...@mail.gmail.com
> I discovered that commit 7117685461af50f50
23 matches
Mail list logo
