On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of jue abr 26 11:10:09 -0300 2012:
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> > I will also be organising a small-medium sized "Future of In-Core
>> > Replication" meeting in Ottawa o
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>>> So you basically need a large part of postgres for reliably making sense
>>> of WAL.
>
>> Agreed, but I think that's a problem we need to fix and not a
>> tolerabl
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> So you basically need a large part of postgres for reliably making sense
>> of WAL.
> Agreed, but I think that's a problem we need to fix and not a
> tolerable situation at all. If a user can create a type-output
> f
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> I think the question we should be asking ourselves is not whether WAL
>> as it currently exists is adequate for logical replication, but rather
>> or not it could be made adequate.
>
> Agreed.
And of course I meant "but rather whether or no
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> "Erred on the side of progress" might even be a little strong, because
>> I think for the most part we have been extremely judicious about
>> backward incompatibilities in the last few releases (which is a good
>> thing).
Excerpts from Ryan Kelly's message of sáb ene 14 16:22:21 -0300 2012:
> I have attached a new patch which handles the connect_timeout option by
> adding a PQconnectTimeout(conn) function to access the connect_timeout
> which I then use to retrieve the existing value from the old connection.
Was
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 13:23 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > (As a side note, RPMs *may not* be ready, because I (and Magnus)
> will be
> > at PGDay Turkey on 12th, and will be busy over the whole weekend).
>
> Is that a closed meeting? I hadn't seen any mention of that anywhere.
Not that much. I'v
Robert Haas writes:
> I like the idea of including the word block in there. I don't think
> it was probably a terribly good idea to abbreviate that to blk
> everywhere, but at this point it's probably better to be consistent,
> sigh.
> As for track_iotiming -> track_io_timing, I'm fine with that
Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of jue abr 26 11:10:09 -0300 2012:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > I will also be organising a small-medium sized "Future of In-Core
> > Replication" meeting in Ottawa on Wed 16 May, 6-10pm.
>
> Thanks for such rapid response. I've
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 16:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs writes:
> >> Translating WAL is a very hard task.
> >
> > No kidding. I would think it's impossible on its face. Just for
> > starters, where will you get table and column n
Robert Haas writes:
> "Erred on the side of progress" might even be a little strong, because
> I think for the most part we have been extremely judicious about
> backward incompatibilities in the last few releases (which is a good
> thing). Obviously, 8.3 was a flag day of the first magnitude, an
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Let's not go looking for reasons to
>> reject the approach just because we didn't expect it to work as well
>> as it does.
>
> Who here, in your opinion, is looking for reasons to reject
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On sön, 2012-04-29 at 10:19 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Maybe we don't need to do this over multiple releases, but we do need
>> to give warning of possible incompatibilities. It would be good to see
>> a specific post on hackers called "
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> Translating WAL is a very hard task.
>
> No kidding. I would think it's impossible on its face. Just for
> starters, where will you get table and column names from? (Looking at
> the system catalogs is cheating, and wil
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> Though it isn't a given that logical change records (LCRs) will
>> require more bandwidth than physical WAL.
>
> It would help if you could share a little more of what you have in
> mind. It's not yet clear to me wh
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55:15PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> Concerning everyone's favorite topic, how to name the new type of table, I
> liked Tom's proposal[1] to make CREATE TEMP TABLE retain current behavior and
> have CREATE GLOBAL TEMP TABLE and/or CREATE LOCAL TEMP TABLE request the new
> S
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> * prevent default_transaction_isolation = serializable as a default
> setting when we enter Hot Standby by throwing a FATAL error from the
> startup process. I can help implement that if we agree.
I am strongly disinclined to go that route, be
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>>> The only way default_transaction_isolation = serializable would
>>> be acceptable when hot_standby = on is if we silently downgrade
>>> the isolation level to read committed. That way ever
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Though it isn't a given that logical change records (LCRs) will
> require more bandwidth than physical WAL.
It would help if you could share a little more of what you have in
mind. It's not yet clear to me whether you're talking about adding
logical records to the WAL str
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am again requesting the addition of options to tools/git_changelog so
I can more easily produce the release notes. I asked for this during
9.1 development and it was rejected. I am currently using my own
custom version of the tool, but have to merge community improvements
Magnus Hagander wrote:
2012/4/28 Josh Berkus:
Ugh. Maybe the whole idea of getting a beta out before PGCon is doomed.
Still, if we don't try for this schedule, we're looking at at least two
more weeks' slip, because we're surely not going to wrap during PGCon.
We could do it in person!
We co
I didn't find a good way to find out how many digits a numeric value has
or things like whether a numeric value is an integer. (I had to go
through bc(1) for the latter.) Functions like precision() and scale()
would have been quite handy. Are there other ways to do this, or would
this make a goo
On sön, 2012-04-29 at 10:19 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Maybe we don't need to do this over multiple releases, but we do need
> to give warning of possible incompatibilities. It would be good to see
> a specific post on hackers called "Planned Incompatibilities in 9.2",
> or collect such things on
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> The only way default_transaction_isolation = serializable would be
>> acceptable when hot_standby = on is if we silently downgrade the
>> isolation level to read committed. That way everything just works,
>> albeit n
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 12:03 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>>
>> > As to what LCRs should contain, it will probably be locical equivalents
>> > of INSERT, UPDATE ... LIMIT 1, DELETE ... LIM
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> I think we only need one new mode, "shutdown when transactions are
>> finished" should only shutdown when all types of transaction are
>> complete. For people that don't use prepared transactions the
>> difference is irrele
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 12:03 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> > As to what LCRs should contain, it will probably be locical equivalents
> > of INSERT, UPDATE ... LIMIT 1, DELETE ... LIMIT 1, TRUNCATE and all DDL.
>
> Yeh
>
> > I would even go
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
>> It would be enormously more performant for the master to be
>> emitting logical replication records to start with, since it
>> already has all the right names etc at hand at basically no cost.
>
> Not when the consumers are across a WAN, a
Simon Riggs wrote:
> The only way default_transaction_isolation = serializable would be
> acceptable when hot_standby = on is if we silently downgrade the
> isolation level to read committed. That way everything just works,
> albeit not quite as requested. So I think that's the best way
> forwar
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
>> IMHO the desired behaviour would be
>>
>> * prevent default_transaction_isolation = serializable as a default
>> setting when we enter Hot Standby by throwing a FATAL error from
>> the startup process. I can help implement that if we agree
Simon Riggs writes:
> I think we only need one new mode, "shutdown when transactions are
> finished" should only shutdown when all types of transaction are
> complete. For people that don't use prepared transactions the
> difference is irrelevant. For people that do use prepared
> transactions, I
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 14:23, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
>
>> (As a side note, RPMs *may not* be ready, because I (and Magnus) will be
>> at PGDay Turkey on 12th, and will be busy over the whole weekend).
>
> Is that a closed meeting? I hadn't see
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> In any case, if either the existing session of the TM is cut or it
>> cannot create a new connection, it will, after some time, have to give
>> up roll back the prepared transactions on the other servers. So some
>> k
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On fre, 2012-04-27 at 14:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think there is no point at all in having a discussion about this
>> unless we can first agree that the overwhelming majority of people who
>> have commented on this issue on this list are unhappy with the current
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> In any case, if either the existing session of the TM is cut or it
> cannot create a new connection, it will, after some time, have to give
> up roll back the prepared transactions on the other servers. So some
> kind of setting to not shut down if there are prepared tr
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> Well, the xReader approach (Aakash's GSoC project) is to serve as
>> a proxy for a WAL stream going to a hot standby, to interpret each
>> incoming WAL record by "cheating" and querying the HS before
>> passing the WAL along, and then using sync rep
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>> But if you set it in the postgresql.conf file, it's not pretty:
>>
>> kevin@kevin-desktop:~$ psql -p 5433 test
>> psql: FATAL: can not create a serializable snapshot during
>> recovery
>>
>> Ideas?
>
> The patch as submitted doesn't do anything us
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> (As a side note, RPMs *may not* be ready, because I (and Magnus) will be
> at PGDay Turkey on 12th, and will be busy over the whole weekend).
Is that a closed meeting? I hadn't seen any mention of that anywhere.
--
Simon Riggs
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> But if you set it in the postgresql.conf file, it's not pretty:
>
> kevin@kevin-desktop:~$ psql -p 5433 test
> psql: FATAL: can not create a serializable snapshot during recovery
>
> Ideas?
The patch as submitted doesn't do anything usefu
Hi Alexander,
Perhaps I'm too early with these tests, but FWIW I reran my earlier test
program against three
instances. (the patches compiled fine, and make check was without problem).
-- 3 instances:
HEAD port 6542
trgm_regex port 6547 HEAD + trgm-regexp patch (22 N
There might be a patch available for this already. In the worst case
articulated above (less than 64 columns), if all the nulls are trailing
nulls, the bitmap need not be saved. Actually it is not 64(actually 72), as
postgres heaptupleheader is only 23 bytes and one byte is left for the
start of th
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Let's not go looking for reasons to
> reject the approach just because we didn't expect it to work as well
> as it does.
Who here, in your opinion, is looking for reasons to reject anything?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2nd
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> As to what LCRs should contain, it will probably be locical equivalents
> of INSERT, UPDATE ... LIMIT 1, DELETE ... LIMIT 1, TRUNCATE and all DDL.
Yeh
> I would even go as far as propose a variant for DML-WITH-LIMIT-1 to be
> added to post
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> So lets implement the new shutdown mode and work out a transition path
>> to a new default. Changing rapidly screws up the people we love the
>> most.
>
> In some cases, there are ways t
On fre, 2012-04-27 at 14:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think there is no point at all in having a discussion about this
> unless we can first agree that the overwhelming majority of people who
> have commented on this issue on this list are unhappy with the current
> default behavior. If we are
On lör, 2012-04-28 at 11:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On fre, 2012-04-27 at 22:30 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> In the few cases where I investigated it TMs don't use transactions
> >> themselves (which I think is correct, they don't need them), so
> >> terminating a
46 matches
Mail list logo
