Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-10 Thread Amit kapila
On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 7:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote: On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 5:49 PM Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-01-09 15:06:04 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 2:28 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2013-01-09 14:04:32 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-09 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 5:49 PM Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-01-09 15:06:04 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 2:28 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2013-01-09 14:04:32 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:57 PM Andres Freund wrote: > >

Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-09 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-01-09 15:06:04 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 2:28 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2013-01-09 14:04:32 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:57 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > > > On 2013-01-08 20:33:28 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > On T

Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-09 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 2:28 PM Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-01-09 14:04:32 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:57 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2013-01-08 20:33:28 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:01 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-09 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-01-09 14:04:32 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:57 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2013-01-08 20:33:28 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:01 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > > > On 2013-01-08 19:51:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > On Mon

Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-09 Thread Amit Kapila
On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:57 PM Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-01-08 20:33:28 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:01 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2013-01-08 19:51:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 07, 2013 7:15 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-08 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-01-08 20:33:28 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:01 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2013-01-08 19:51:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Monday, January 07, 2013 7:15 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > > > On 2013-01-07 19:03:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > On Mond

Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-08 Thread Amit Kapila
On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:01 PM Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-01-08 19:51:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Monday, January 07, 2013 7:15 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2013-01-07 19:03:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 07, 2013 6:30 PM Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > > O

Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-08 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-01-08 19:51:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Monday, January 07, 2013 7:15 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2013-01-07 19:03:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Monday, January 07, 2013 6:30 PM Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > On 7 January 2013 12:39, Amit Kapila > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > So

Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-08 Thread Amit Kapila
On Monday, January 07, 2013 7:15 PM Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-01-07 19:03:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Monday, January 07, 2013 6:30 PM Simon Riggs wrote: > > > On 7 January 2013 12:39, Amit Kapila > wrote: > > > > > > > So We can modify to change this in function LogStandbySnapshot as

Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-07 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-01-07 19:03:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Monday, January 07, 2013 6:30 PM Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 7 January 2013 12:39, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > So We can modify to change this in function LogStandbySnapshot as > > below: > > > running = GetRunningTransactionData

Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On 7 January 2013 13:33, Amit Kapila wrote: >> If we skip the WAL record in the way you suggest, we'd be unable to >> start quickly in some cases. > > If there are any operations happened which have generated WAL, then on next > checkpoint interval the checkpoint operation should happen. > Which

Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-07 Thread Amit Kapila
On Monday, January 07, 2013 6:30 PM Simon Riggs wrote: > On 7 January 2013 12:39, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > So We can modify to change this in function LogStandbySnapshot as > below: > > running = GetRunningTransactionData(); > > if (running->xcnt > 0) > >

Re: [HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On 7 January 2013 12:39, Amit Kapila wrote: > So We can modify to change this in function LogStandbySnapshot as below: > running = GetRunningTransactionData(); > if (running->xcnt > 0) > LogCurrentRunningXacts(running); > > So this check wil

[HACKERS] Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot

2013-01-07 Thread Amit Kapila
Observation is that whenever a checkpoint happens and the wal_level configured is hot_standby then one standby snapshot XLOG gets written with the information of "running transaction". So if first time checkpoint happened at specified interval, it will create new XLOG in LogStandbySnapshot, due