On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 4:46 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 09:15:06AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I am letting that aside for a couple of days to see if others have
> > more comments, and will likely commit it after an extra lookup.
>
> And applied after an extra looku
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 09:15:06AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I am letting that aside for a couple of days to see if others have
> more comments, and will likely commit it after an extra lookup.
And applied after an extra lookup. Thanks for the discussion, James.
--
Michael
signature.asc
D
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 12:13:38PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> I think is missing a word. Instead of "especially the the target"
> should be "especially if the target".
Thanks, fixed.
> In this block:
>
> + Create a backup_label file to begin WAL replay at
> + the checkpoint created
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 12:31 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 09:26:17AM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> >> - pg_stat_tmp/, and
> >> - pg_subtrans/ are omitted from the data copied
> >> - from the source cluster. Any file or directory beginning with
> >> - p
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 09:26:17AM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
>> - pg_stat_tmp/, and
>> - pg_subtrans/ are omitted from the data copied
>> - from the source cluster. Any file or directory beginning with
>> - pgsql_tmp is omitted, as well as are
>> + pg_stat_tmp/, and
>> pg
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 2:59 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 05:13:21PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> > I've added the information about how the backup label control file is
> > written, and updated the How It Works steps to refer to that separately
> > from restart.
> >
> > Ad
On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 05:13:21PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> I've added the information about how the backup label control file is
> written, and updated the How It Works steps to refer to that separately
> from restart.
>
> Additionally the How It Works is updated to include WAL segments and
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 5:13 PM James Coleman wrote:
>
> I realized I didn't previously add this to the CF; since it's not a new
> patch I've added it to the current CF, but if this is incorrect please let
> me know.
>
Hmm, looks like I can't add it to the current one. I added it to the next
one
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 9:41 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:38:18AM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> > I don't agree that that's a valid equivalency. I myself spent a lot of
> > time trying to understand how this could possibly be true a while
> > back, and even looked at sou
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:38:18AM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> I don't agree that that's a valid equivalency. I myself spent a lot of
> time trying to understand how this could possibly be true a while
> back, and even looked at source code to be certain. I've asked other
> people and found the s
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:51 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 10:36:04AM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 10:25 AM Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> >> +The rewind operation is not expected to result in a consistent data
> >> +directory state either
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 10:36:04AM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 10:25 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> +The rewind operation is not expected to result in a consistent data
>> +directory state either internally to the node or with respect to the
>> rest
>> +of the
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 10:25 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 07:00:54PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> > Updated (plus some additional wordsmithing).
>
> +The rewind operation is not expected to result in a consistent data
> +directory state either internally to the n
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 07:00:54PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> Updated (plus some additional wordsmithing).
+The rewind operation is not expected to result in a consistent data
+directory state either internally to the node or with respect to the rest
+of the cluster. Instead the res
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 12:20 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 01:47:03PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> > So I've attached a patch to summarize more correctly as well as
> > document clearly the state of the cluster after the operation and also
> > the operation sequencing dan
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 01:47:03PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> So I've attached a patch to summarize more correctly as well as
> document clearly the state of the cluster after the operation and also
> the operation sequencing dangers caused by copying configuration
> files from the source.
+
16 matches
Mail list logo
