On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 08:20:02AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> >
>> >> One thing I would like to ask is that why you think walr
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 08:20:02AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >
> >> One thing I would like to ask is that why you think walreceiver is more
> >> appropriate for writing XLOG_END_OF_RECO
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> Are we still considering trying to do this for 9.2? Seems it's been
>> over a month without a new patch, and it's not entirely clear that we
>> know what the design should be.
>
> It's im
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Are we still considering trying to do this for 9.2? Seems it's been
> over a month without a new patch, and it's not entirely clear that we
> know what the design should be.
It's important, but not ready.
--
Simon Riggs h
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>> One thing I would like to ask is that why you think walreceiver is more
>> appropriate for writing XLOG_END_OF_RECOVERY record than startup
>> process. I was thinking the opposite, becau
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> One thing I would like to ask is that why you think walreceiver is more
> appropriate for writing XLOG_END_OF_RECOVERY record than startup
> process. I was thinking the opposite, because if we do so, we might be
> able to skip the end-of-recov
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
When I say skip the shutdown checkpoint, I mean remove it from the
>
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>>> When I say skip the shutdown checkpoint, I mean remove it from the
>>> critical path of required actions at the end of recovery.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> When I say skip the shutdown checkpoint, I mean remove it from the
>> critical path of required actions at the end of recovery. We can still
>> have a normal checkpoint kicked off at tha
On 11/13/2011 12:13 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
When I say skip the shutdown checkpoint, I mean remove it from the
critical path of required actions at the end of recovery. We can still
have a normal checkpoint kicked off at that time, but that no
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> When I say skip the shutdown checkpoint, I mean remove it from the
> critical path of required actions at the end of recovery. We can still
> have a normal checkpoint kicked off at that time, but that no longer
> needs to be on the critical pa
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> The reason we run a shutdown checkpoint is to prevent needing to
>> re-enter recovery if we crash after promotion.
>
> That's *a* reason, it's not necessarily the only reason. This proposal
> worries me, especially your bli
Simon Riggs writes:
> The reason we run a shutdown checkpoint is to prevent needing to
> re-enter recovery if we crash after promotion.
That's *a* reason, it's not necessarily the only reason. This proposal
worries me, especially your blithe dismissal of the timeline issues;
but in any case I wo
When a server fails, we need to promote a standby as quickly as possible.
Currently when we promote a standby to a primary we need to run a
shutdown checkpoint before users can begin write transactions, which
in many cases can take minutes.
The reason we run a shutdown checkpoint is to prevent ne
14 matches
Mail list logo
