On Friday, February 18, 2022 3:27 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> Hi. Below are my code review comments for v18.
Thank you for your review !
> ==
>
> 1. Commit Message - wording
>
> BEFORE
> To partially remedy the situation, adding a new subscription_parameter named
> 'disable_on_error'.
>
>
On Saturday, February 19, 2022 12:00 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 3:34 PM Tang, Haiying/唐 海英
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 8:35 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > 4) I noticed that the abort_count doesn
On Monday, February 21, 2022 6:06 PM Monday, February 21, 2022 6:06 PM wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 11:46 AM Osumi, Takamichi/大墨 昂道
> wrote:
> >I've addressed this point in a new v23 patch, since there was no opinion on
> this so far.
> >Kindly have a look at the attached one.
> Thanks for updati
On Monday, February 21, 2022 2:56 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> Thanks for addressing my previous comments. Now I have looked at v19.
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:25 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, February 18, 2022 3:27 PM Peter Smith
> wr
On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 10:15 AM Tang, Haiying/唐 海英
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 11:46 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 12:00 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 18
On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 7:53 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:44 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, February 21, 2022 2:56 PM Peter Smith
> wrote:
> > > Thanks for addressing my previous comments. Now I have looked a
On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 2:45 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> I've attached a patch that changes pg_stat_subscription_workers view.
> It removes non-cumulative values such as error details such as error-XID and
> the error message from the view, and consequently the view now has only
> cumulativ
On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 11:47 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 9:22 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > (4) doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml
> >
> >
> > role="column_definition">
> > -
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 6:52 PM Tang, Haiying/唐 海英
wrote:
> I have a comment on v21 patch.
>
> I wonder if we really need subscription s2 in 028_disable_on_error.pl. I
> think for
> subscription s2, we only tested some normal cases(which could be tested with
> s1), and didn't test any e
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 11:07 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> I have some comments on v23 patch:
>
> @@ -66,6 +66,12 @@ typedef struct LogicalRepWorker
> TimestampTz last_recv_time;
> XLogRecPtr reply_lsn;
> TimestampTz reply_time;
> +
> + /*
> +* Transaction statistics of
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 3:30 PM Amit Kapila
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 6:45 AM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > I found a problem when using it. When a replication workers exits, the
> > transaction stats should be sent to stats collector if they were not
> > sent before because it
On Friday, February 25, 2022 12:57 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 6:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 8:08 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 1:20 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here are some comments:
> > > >
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 8:09 PM Amit Kapila
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 1:20 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > + /*
> > +* Log the error that caused DisableSubscriptionOnError to be
> called. We
> > +* do this immediately so that it won't be lost if some other
> > intern
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:50 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:03 PM Peter Smith
> wrote:
> >
> > ~~~
> >
> > 1. worker.c - comment
> >
> > + subform = (Form_pg_subscription) GETSTRUCT(tup);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * We would not be here unless this subscription's disable
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 6:52 PM Tang, Haiying/唐 海英
wrote:
> I have a comment on v21 patch.
>
> I wonder if we really need subscription s2 in 028_disable_on_error.pl. I
> think for
> subscription s2, we only tested some normal cases(which could be tested with
> s1), and didn't test any e
On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 3:03 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> Here are a couple more review comments for v21.
>
> ~~~
>
> 1. worker.c - comment
>
> + subform = (Form_pg_subscription) GETSTRUCT(tup);
> +
> + /*
> + * We would not be here unless this subscription's disableonerr field
> + was
> + * t
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 11:51 AM Amit Kapila
wrote:
> I have reviewed the latest version and made a few changes along with fixing
> some of the pending comments by Peter Smith. The changes are as
> follows: (a) Removed m_databaseid in PgStat_MsgSubscriptionError as that is
> not required n
On Monday, February 28, 2022 11:34 AM Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 1:35 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 11:51 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > > I have reviewed the latest version and made a few changes a
On Monday, February 28, 2022 12:57 PM Amit Kapila
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:49 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, February 28, 2022 11:34 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 1:35 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > &
On Friday, February 25, 2022 7:58 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> Kindly have a look at v24.
Hi.
The recent commit(7a85073) has redesigned the view pg_stat_subscription_workers
and now we have pg_stat_subscription_stats. Therefore, I rebased my patch
so that my statistics patch can
On Friday, February 25, 2022 9:45 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> Kindly have a look at attached the v22.
> It has incorporated other improvements of TAP test, refinement of the
> DisableSubscriptionOnError function and so on.
The recent commit(7a85073) has changed the sub
On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 9:49 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> Please see below my review comments for v22.
>
> ==
>
> 1. Commit message
>
> "table sync worker" -> "tablesync worker"
Fixed.
> ~~~
>
> 2. doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml
>
> +
> + If true, the subscription will be disabled w
On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 9:19 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
> Long time, no patch. Here it is. I will provide documentation in the next
>
> version. I would appreciate some feedback.
Hi, thank you for posting the patch !
$ git am v1-0001-Time-delayed-logical-replication-subscriber.patch
Applying: T
On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 4:12 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> Please see below my review comments for v25.
>
> ==
>
> 1. Commit message
>
> Introduce cumulative columns of transactions of logical replication subscriber
> to the pg_stat_subscription_stats view.
>
> "cumulative columns of transacti
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 8:54 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022, at 3:27 AM, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> <mailto:osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>
> $ git am v1-0001-Time-delayed-logical-replication-subscriber.patch
>
>
> I generall
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 9:34 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> Please see below my review comments for v24.
Thank you for checking my patch !
> ==
>
> 1. src/backend/replication/logical/worker.c - start_table_sync
>
> + /* Report the worker failed during table synchronization */
> + pgstat_repo
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 12:47 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> After more thoughts, should we do both AbortOutOfAnyTransaction() and error
> message handling while holding interrupts? That is,
>
> HOLD_INTERRUPTS();
> EmitErrorReport();
> FlushErrorState();
> AbortOutOfAny Transaction();
> RESUME
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 2:18 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 10:21 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > Also, I quickly checked other similar views(pg_stat_slru,
> > pg_stat_wal_receiver) commit logs, especially when they introduce columns.
> &
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 5:29 PM Shi, Yu/侍 雨 wrote:
> A comments on the v26 patch.
Thank you for checking the patch !
>
> The following document about pg_stat_subscription_stats view only says that
> "showing statistics about errors", should we add something about transactions
> here?
>
>
On Friday, March 4, 2022 10:09 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 10:02 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm updating the patches and will submit them.
>
> Attached updated version patches.
Thank you for sharing the patch v3.
Few minor comments.
(1) v03-0001, apply_erro
On Friday, March 4, 2022 2:23 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I've attached updated patches.
Hi, thank you for updating the patch.
One comment on v4.
In v4-0002, we introduce 'commit_lsn' in the ApplyErrorCallbackArg.
This member is set for prepare, rollback prepared and stream_abort as well.
The ne
On Friday, March 4, 2022 3:55 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for updating the patch.
>
> Here are some comments on v26 patch:
Thank you for your review !
> +/*
> + * Disable the current subscription.
> + */
> +static void
> +DisableSubscriptionOnError(void)
>
> This function now just u
On Monday, March 7, 2022 12:01 PM Shi, Yu/侍 雨 wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 5:39 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > Attached an updated patch v26.
> >
>
> Thanks for your patch. A comment on the document.
Hi, thank you for checking my patch !
> @@
On Monday, March 7, 2022 5:45 PM Amit Kaila wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 4:55 AM Peter Smith
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 5:55 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > >
> > > ---
> > > +/*
> > > + * First, ensure that we log the error message so
> > > that i
On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 2:52 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:37 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Please find below some review comments for v29.
> >
> > ==
> >
> > 1. src/backend/replication/logical/worker.c -
> > worker_post_error_processing
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Abort and clea
On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 1:07 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> Please find below some review comments for v29.
Thank you for your comments !
> ==
>
> 1. src/backend/replication/logical/worker.c - worker_post_error_processing
>
> +/*
> + * Abort and cleanup the current transaction, then do post-e
On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 3:02 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:22 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:37 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 6:29 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > It might have already be
On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 1:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 6:53 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:37 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Kindly have a look at v30.
> > >
> >
On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 9:58 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 5:07 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > Kindly have a look at v30.
>
> Thank you for updating the patch. Here are some comments:
Hi, thank you for your review !
> +
On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 10:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:37 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > Kindly have a look at v30.
> >
>
> Review comments:
Thank you for checking !
> ===
> 1.
> + ereport(LOG,
>
On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 8:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 2:21 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:33 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 10:23 PM Amit Kapila
>
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 12:01 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> I've attached an updated patch along with two patches for cfbot tests since
> the
> main patch (0003) depends on the other two patches. Both
> 0001 and 0002 patches are the same ones I attached on another thread[2].
Hi, few comments o
On Friday, March 11, 2022 5:20 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I've attached an updated version patch. This patch can be applied on top of
> the
> latest disable_on_error patch[1].
Hi, thank you for the patch. I'll share my review comments on v13.
(a) src/backend/commands/subscriptioncmds.c
@@ -84
On Monday, March 14, 2022 7:49 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:04 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 7:57 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, attached v32 removed my addit
On Friday, March 11, 2022 5:20 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I've attached an updated version patch. This patch can be applied on top of
> the
> latest disable_on_error patch[1].
Hi, few extra comments on v13.
(1) src/backend/replication/logical/worker.c
With regard to clear_subscription_skip_l
On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 8:04 AM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> My compiler is worried that syncslotname may be used uninitialized in
> start_table_sync(). The attached patch seems to silence this warning.
Thank you for your reporting !
Your fix looks good to me.
Best Regards,
Takamichi Os
On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 3:13 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> I've attached an updated version patch.
A couple of minor comments on v14.
(1) apply_handle_commit_internal
+ if (is_skipping_changes())
+ {
+ stop_skipping_changes();
+
+ /*
+*
On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 11:33 AM Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 7:30 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 3:13 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > > I've attached an updated version patch.
> &
On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 3:37 PM I wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 11:33 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 7:30 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 3:13 PM Masahiko Sawada
> >
On Thursday, March 17, 2022 3:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 1:53 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've attached an updated version patch.
> >
>
> The patch LGTM. I have made minor changes in comments and docs in the
> attached patch. Kindly let me know what you think of t
On Thursday, March 17, 2022 7:56 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 5:52 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:39 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 3:04 PM Amit Kapila
&g
Hi
Sorry for being late.
On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:42 AM Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > Yeah, although it's enough only to restrict non-harmful records
> > practically, if we find that only a few kinds of records are needed,
> > maybe it's cleaner to allow only
Hello
I've made a new patch v05 that took in comments
to filter out WALs more strictly and addressed some minor fixes
that were discussed within past few days.
Also, I changed the documentations, considering those modifications.
Best,
Takamichi Osumi
disable_WAL_logging_v05.patch
Des
Hi
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 4:29 PM
Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Thu, 26 Nov 2020 07:18:39 +, "osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com"
> wrote in
> > The attached patch is intended to prevent a scenario that archive
> > recovery hits WALs which come from wal_
Hello, hackers
I have a question about how to execute valgrind with TAP tests
in order to check some patches in the community.
My main interest is testing src/test/subscription now but
is there any general way to do it ?
The documentation [1] says
"It's important to realize that the TAP tests wi
Hello
On Saturday, December 19, 2020 1:03 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> "osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com" writes:
> > I have a question about how to execute valgrind with TAP tests in
> > order to check some patches in the community.
> > My main interest is testing src/test/su
Hi, Alexander
On Sunday, December 20, 2020 5:00 PM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> > "osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com" writes:
> >> I have a question about how to execute valgrind with TAP tests in
> >> order to check some patches in the community.
> >> My mai
Hi, Michael
Thank you for your attention to this thread.
On Friday, December 25, 2020 4:09 PM Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 03:52:47AM +, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > The code looks good, and the performance seems to be nice, so I marked
> > this ready for co
Hello Sawada-San
On Monday, December 28, 2020 2:29 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:14 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > I've made a new patch v05 that took in comments to filter out WALs
> > more strictly and addressed some mi
Hi, Amit-San
On Thursday, Dec 24, 2020 2:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 3:08 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > > Can you please update the patch for the points we agreed upon?
> >
> > Changed and attached.
> >
>
> Thanks, I have looked at these patches again and it seems patch
Hi, Sawada-San
On Monday, December 28, 2020 7:12 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 4:29 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > On Monday, December 28, 2020 2:29 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:14 PM osumi.takami...@
Hi,
On Tuesday, January 5, 2021 5:45 PM
Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > On Monday, December 28, 2020 7:12 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 4:29 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
Hi,
This thread came from another thread about wal_level [1].
Mainly from backup management tools perspective
such as pgBackRest, EDB's BART and pg_probackup,
it seems worth talking about a way comprehensively
to trace and recognize wal_level changes for various purposes and values
like necessit
Hello, Sawada-san
I'll continue the discussion of [2].
We talked about how to recognize the time or LSN
when/where wal_level is changed to 'none' there.
You said
> The use case I imagined is that the user temporarily
> changes wal_level to 'none' from 'replica' or 'logical' to speed up loading
Hi Stephen
Thank you so much for replying !
On Thursday, January 7, 2021 2:40 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> * osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com (osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com) wrote:
> > You said
> > > The use case I imagined is that the user temporarily changes
> > > wal_level
Hi
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 5:10 PM Peter Smith
wrote:
> Please find attached the new 2PC patch set v39*
I started to review the patchset
so, let me give some comments I have at this moment.
(1)
File : v39-0007-Support-2PC-txn-tests-for-concurrent-aborts.patch
Modification :
@@ -620,6
Hi
On Tuesday, February 16, 2021 8:33 AM Peter Smith
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 5:59 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > (2)
> >
> > File : v39-0006-Support-2PC-txn-Subscription-option.patch
> >
> > @@ -213,6 +219,15 @@ pars
Hi
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 4:02 PM Peter Smith
> Please find attached the latest patch set v43*
>
> - Added new patch 0007 "Fix apply worker prepare" as discussed here [2]
>
> [2]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1L%3DdhuCRvyDvrXX5wZ
> gc7s1hLRD29CKCK6oaHtVCPgiFA%40mail.gmai
Hi
On Saturday, March 6, 2021 10:49 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> Please find attached the latest patch set v50*
When I read throught the patch set, I found there is a
wierd errmsg in apply_handle_begin_prepare(), which seems a mistake.
File : v50-0003-Add-support-for-apply-at-prepare-time-to-built-
On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 3:48 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 28.01.21 01:44, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> >> (1) writing the time or LSN in the control file to indicate
> >> when/where wal_level is changed to 'minimal'
> >> from upper level to inva
On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 11:13 PM David Steele
> On 3/7/21 9:45 PM, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 3:48 AM Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> >> On 28.01.21 01:44, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> >>>> (1) writing the time or
Hi
On Friday, March 12, 2021 5:40 PM Peter Smith
> Please find attached the latest patch set v58*
Thank you for updating those. I'm testing the patchset
and I think it's preferable that you add simple two types of more tests in
020_twophase.pl
because those aren't checked by v58.
(1) execute s
On Friday, March 12, 2021 5:04 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 08.03.21 03:45, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > OK. The basic idea is to enable backup management tools to recognize
> > wal_level drop between*snapshots*.
> > When you have a snapshot of the cluster at
Hello
On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 12:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:00 PM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This seems to be a new low frequency failure, I didn't see it mentioned
> already:
Oh, this is the test I wrote and included as part of the commit ce0fdbfe
#
Hi
On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:15 PM vignesh C wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:29 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:00 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:00 PM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > This seems to be a
Hi,
I wrote and attached the first patch to disable WAL logging.
This patch passes the regression test of check-world already
and is formatted by pgindent.
Also, I conducted 3 types of performance tests to
clarify the rough benefits of the patch.
I compared two wal_levels both 'minimal' and 'no
Hi, Laurenz
> > I wrote and attached the first patch to disable WAL logging.
> > This patch passes the regression test of check-world already and is
> > formatted by pgindent.
>
> Without reading the code, I have my doubts about that feature.
>
> While it clearly will improve performance, it op
Hello
> > But what if someone sets wal_level=none, performs some data
> > modifications, sets wal_level=archive and after dome more processing
> > decides to restore from a backup that was taken before the cluster was set
> to wal_level=none?
> > Then they would end up with a corrupted database,
Hi,
From: Tsunakawa, Takayuki < tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com>
> From: osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> > > > * I don't think that you've fully thought through the implications
> > > > of replacing a trigger for a table that the current transaction
Hello
On Friday, October 30, 2020 1:32 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On 2020/10/29 19:21, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2020-10-29 at 11:42 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > >>> But what if someone sets wal_level=none, performs some data
> > >>> modifications, sets wal_level=archive and after dom
Hi
Peter-San, thanks for your support.
On Monday, November 2, 2020 2:39 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> ===
>
> (1) COMMENT
> File: NA
> Maybe next time consider using format-patch to make the patch. Then you
> can include a comment to give the background/motivation for this change.
OK. How about v15 ?
Hi,
On Thursday, November 5, 2020 1:22 PM
Peter Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:53 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > > (1) COMMENT
> > > File: NA
> > > Maybe next time consider using format-patch to make the patch. Then
> > > you ca
Hello
On Friday, November 6, 2020 2:25 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > > Yes, OK. But it might be simpler still just to it like:
> > > "CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER works only for replacing a regular (not
> > > constraint) trigger with another regular trigger."
> > Yeah, this kind of supplementary words
Hi,
On Saturday, Nov 7, 2020 2:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> The patch looks fine to me however I feel that in the test case there are a
> lot
> of duplicate statement which can be reduced e.g.
> +-- 1. Overwrite existing regular trigger with regular trigger
> (without OR REPLACE)
> +create trigge
Hello, Stephen
On Tuesday, Nov 3, 2020 3:02 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 4:28 PM Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 4:00 PM Fujii Masao
> wrote:
> > > > Yes. What I meant was such a safe guard needs to be im
Horiguchi-San
On Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:00 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> FWIW, the following is that, I think it works not only when wal_level=minimal
> for SET UNLOGGED, and only works when minimal for SET LOGGED.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20201002.100621.1668918756520
Hello, Tsunakawa-San
> Do you know the reason why data copy was done before? And, it may be
> odd for me to ask this, but I think I saw someone referred to the past
> discussion that eliminating data copy is difficult due to some processing at
> commit. I can't find it.
I can share 2 sources wh
Hi
On Thursday, October 29, 2020 11:42 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> BTW, with the patch, I observed that PREPARE TRANSACTION and COMMIT
> PREPARED caused assertion failure in my env, as I pointed upthread.
>
> How does the patch handle other feature depending on the existence of WAL,
> e.g., pg_log
Hello
In the past discussion of wal_level=none,
there were some ideas to trace the change of wal_level,
in other words, *stronger mechanism* to check wal_level.
I agree with the idea to have a new monitoring item
and would like to implement those kind of, or one of those ideas for the next
patch
Hello
On Thursday, Nov 19, 2020 12:45 PM Tsunakawa, Takayuki/綱川 貴之
> > On Tuesday, Nov 3, 2020 3:02 AM Stephen Frost
> > wrote:
> > > Checking the WAL level certainly seems critical to anything that's
> > > reading the WAL. We certainly do this already when running as a
> > > replica:
> > >
>
Hello, Laurenz
On Thursday, Nov19, 2020 4:50 PM Laurenz Albe wrote
> On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 05:24 +0000, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > > > > ereport(WARNING,
> > > > > (errmsg("WAL was generated with wal_level=
Hello
On Friday, Nov 20, 2020 9:33 AM Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > At Thu, 19 Nov 2020 11:04:17 -0500, Stephen Frost
> > > * Laurenz Albe (laurenz.a...@cybertec.at) wrote:
> > > > I missed that this is only a warning when I looked at it before.
> > > > Yes, it shou
Hi
This time, I updated my patch to address comments below only.
Please have a look at updated one.
On Thursday, Nov 19, 2020 4:51 PM Tsunakawa, Takayuki
> (1)
> #define RelationNeedsWAL(relation)
> \
> + (wal_level != WAL_LEVEL_NONE &&
>
Hi
On Monday, Nov 23, 2020 12:17 PM Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> PREPARE TRANSACTION is the same as COMMIT in that it persists
> transaction updates. A crash during wal_level = none loses both of them.
> So, I don't think PREPARE TRANSACTION needs special treatment.
Yeah, I got it. That makes s
Hello
The attached patch is intended to prevent a scenario that
archive recovery hits WALs which come from wal_level=minimal
and the server continues to work, which was discussed in the thread of [1].
The motivation is to protect that user ends up with both getting replica
that could miss data an
Hello, Horiguchi-San
On Thursday, Nov 26, 2020 4:29 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> At Thu, 26 Nov 2020 07:18:39 +, "osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com"
> wrote in
> > In order to test this fix, what I did is
> > 1 - get a base backup during wal_level is replica
> >
Hello, Sergei
> It is possible only with manually configured hot_standby = off, right?
> We have ERROR in hot standby mode just below in
> CheckRequiredParameterValues.
Yes, you are right. I turned off the hot_standby in the test in the previous
e-mail.
I'm sorry that I missed writing this tip of
Hello, Sawada-San
On Friday, November 27, 2020 3:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> - (errmsg("WAL was generated with wal_level=minimal,
> data may be missing"),
> + (errmsg("WAL was generated with wal_level<=minimal,
> data may be missing"),
> errhint("T
Hi, Tsunakawa-San
> I'm afraid "none" doesn't represent the behavior because RM_XLOG_ID and
> RM_XACT_ID WAL records, except for XLOG_FPI_*, are emitted. What's the
> good name? IIUC, "minimal" is named after the fact that the minimal
> amount of WAL necessary for crash recovery is generated.
Thank you, Horiguchi-San
> I haven't seen a criteria of whether a record is emitted or not for
> wal_leve=none.
>
> We're emitting only redo logs. So I think theoretically we don't need
> anything
> other than the shutdown checkpoint record because we don't perform
> recovery and checkpoint rec
1 - 100 of 341 matches
Mail list logo
