Hi,
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Thanks, I started to look at this again now.
Thanks a lot!
> I found the global LogstreamResult variable very confusing. It meant
> different things in different processes. So I replaced it with static
> globals in walsender.c and
Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
>> wrote:
>>> BTW, are you going to submit another WIP patch for next commitfest?
>> Well, Heikki was going to keep working on this and Hot Standby between
>> Com
> Recently, the development of SR is not progressing because of
> the indecision on whether walreceiver should be a subprocess
> of the startup process (i.e., a stand-alone program), or of
> postmaster. Since time is running out, I'd like to discuss
> about this and advance the project.
>
> The re
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
> wrote:
>> BTW, are you going to submit another WIP patch for next commitfest?
>
> Well, Heikki was going to keep working on this and Hot Standby between
> CommitFests "until it gets
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> wrt. synchronous replication, if someone else has the cycles to look at
> it, that would be great. I got stuck on the postmaster-process or not
> question Fujii raised again now, not being able to decide.
What is your worry about th
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Fujii Masao escreveu:
>> IMO, walreceiver should be a subprocess of postmaster for
>> the following reasons.
>>
> +1. I agree that the first version should be as close as possible to
> postmaster. My points are: (i) it will be easier to install (no need to
> insta
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
> wrote:
>> BTW, are you going to submit another WIP patch for next commitfest?
>
> Well, Heikki was going to keep working on this and Hot Standby between
> CommitFests "until it gets committed", but things seem to be
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
wrote:
> BTW, are you going to submit another WIP patch for next commitfest?
Well, Heikki was going to keep working on this and Hot Standby between
CommitFests "until it gets committed", but things seem to be stalled
at the moment, possib
Fujii Masao escreveu:
> IMO, walreceiver should be a subprocess of postmaster for
> the following reasons.
>
+1. I agree that the first version should be as close as possible to
postmaster. My points are: (i) it will be easier to install (no need to
install another third-party software), (ii) it w
On Nov 2, 2009, at 5:06 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Hi,
Recently, the development of SR is not progressing because of
the indecision on whether walreceiver should be a subprocess
of the startup process (i.e., a stand-alone program), or of
postmaster. Since time is running out, I'd like to discuss
a
Hi,
Recently, the development of SR is not progressing because of
the indecision on whether walreceiver should be a subprocess
of the startup process (i.e., a stand-alone program), or of
postmaster. Since time is running out, I'd like to discuss
about this and advance the project.
The related thr
11 matches
Mail list logo
