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.
+
The pg_rewind docs assert that the state of the target's data directory
after rewind is equivalent to the source's data directory. But that
isn't true both because the base state is further back in time and
because the target's data directory will include the current state on
the source of any copi
17 matches
Mail list logo
