Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-09-05 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 September 2016 at 06:55, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > >>> I noticed we don't mention what LSN is anywhere, so I'd like to apply >>> the following doc patch also. >> >> +1 for the idea.

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-09-05 Thread Simon Riggs
On 5 September 2016 at 06:55, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> I noticed we don't mention what LSN is anywhere, so I'd like to apply >> the following doc patch also. > > +1 for the idea. What do you think about adding a mention to the > system data

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-09-04 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 4 September 2016 at 14:32, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: >> At 2016-09-04 07:02:01 +0100, si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: >>> >>> > By the way, what has been committed does not include the patch >>> > adding the parsing context in case of an error

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-09-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On 4 September 2016 at 14:32, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > At 2016-09-04 07:02:01 +0100, si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: >> >> > By the way, what has been committed does not include the patch >> > adding the parsing context in case of an error as wanted upthread. >> > Perhaps that's not worth adding no

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-09-04 Thread Abhijit Menon-Sen
At 2016-09-04 07:02:01 +0100, si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: > > > By the way, what has been committed does not include the patch > > adding the parsing context in case of an error as wanted upthread. > > Perhaps that's not worth adding now as there is the GUC refactoring > > potentially happening fo

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-09-03 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 4 September 2016 at 04:50, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 24 August 2016 at 05:50, Michael Paquier wrote: >>

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-09-03 Thread Simon Riggs
On 4 September 2016 at 04:50, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> On 24 August 2016 at 05:50, Michael Paquier >>> wrote: >>> >> Everything else looks in good order. >>> >>> Committed. Th

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-09-03 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 24 August 2016 at 05:50, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >> > Everything else looks in good order. >> >> Committed. Thanks. > > Thanks for the commit! By the way, what has been commi

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-09-03 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 24 August 2016 at 05:50, Michael Paquier wrote: > Everything else looks in good order. > > Committed. Thanks. Thanks for the commit! -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes t

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-09-03 Thread Simon Riggs
On 24 August 2016 at 05:50, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Everything else looks in good order. Committed. Thanks. -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hacker

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-23 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 23 August 2016 at 09:39, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> >>> Looks very reasonable to me (both patches). Thanks for doing that. >>> >>> I am inclined to mark this as ready for committer. >>

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-23 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 23 August 2016 at 09:39, Petr Jelinek wrote: > >> Looks very reasonable to me (both patches). Thanks for doing that. >> >> I am inclined to mark this as ready for committer. > > Looking at it now. > > The messages for recovery_target_lsn do

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On 23 August 2016 at 09:39, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Looks very reasonable to me (both patches). Thanks for doing that. > > I am inclined to mark this as ready for committer. Looking at it now. The messages for recovery_target_lsn don't mention after or before, as do other targets... e.g. rec

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-23 Thread Adrien Nayrat
On 08/23/2016 10:39 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 23/08/16 09:33, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Robert Haas >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Michael Paquier >>> wrote: On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Adrien Nayrat wrote: > As Julien said,

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-23 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 23/08/16 09:33, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Adrien Nayrat wrote: As Julien said, there is nothing to notice that error comes from recovery.conf. My fea

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-23 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Adrien Nayrat >> wrote: >>> As Julien said, there is nothing to notice that error comes from >>> recovery.conf. >>> My fear would be that an user

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-22 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Adrien Nayrat > wrote: >> As Julien said, there is nothing to notice that error comes from >> recovery.conf. >> My fear would be that an user encounters an error like this. Il will be >> difficult to link

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-22 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 8/22/16 8:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Thinking a bit wider than that, we may want to know such context for > normal GUC parameters as well, and that's not the case now. Perhaps > there is actually a reason why that's not done for GUCs, but it seems > that it would be useful there as well. G

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-22 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Adrien Nayrat wrote: > As Julien said, there is nothing to notice that error comes from > recovery.conf. > My fear would be that an user encounters an error like this. Il will be > difficult to link to the recovery.conf. Thinking a bit wider than that, we may want

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-22 Thread Adrien Nayrat
On 08/20/2016 04:16 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> On 20/08/16 02:13, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Adrien Nayrat >>> wrote: >>> Using a PG_TRY/CATCH block the way you do to show to user a different >>> error me

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-20 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 20/08/16 02:13, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Adrien Nayrat >> wrote: >> Using a PG_TRY/CATCH block the way you do to show to user a different >> error message while the original one is actually correct does

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-20 Thread Julien Rouhaud
On 20/08/2016 15:41, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> If we want to specifically name the recovery_target_lsn in the message, we >> could probably do it using context. > > So that would be basically assigning error_context_stack for each item > par

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-20 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > If we want to specifically name the recovery_target_lsn in the message, we > could probably do it using context. So that would be basically assigning error_context_stack for each item parsed for recovery.conf? That seems a bit narrow as usua

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-19 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 20/08/16 02:13, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Adrien Nayrat wrote: I reviewed this patch rebased to deal with f6ced51f9188ad5806219471a0b40a91dde923aa, and minor adjustment (see below) Thanks! It do the job. However if you use an incorrect recovery_target_lsn y

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-19 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Adrien Nayrat wrote: > I reviewed this patch rebased to deal with > f6ced51f9188ad5806219471a0b40a91dde923aa, and minor adjustment (see below) Thanks! > It do the job. However if you use an incorrect recovery_target_lsn you > get this message : > "FATAL: invali

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-08-19 Thread Adrien Nayrat
On 06/09/2016 02:33 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> Christoph Berg wrote: Re: Michael Paquier 2016-05-24 > Yeah, that's really something that covers only a narro

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-06-09 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Christoph Berg wrote: >>> Re: Michael Paquier 2016-05-24 >>> >>> > Yeah, that's really something that covers only a narrow case, though >>> > if we don't have it when we need it

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-05-24 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Christoph Berg wrote: >> Re: Michael Paquier 2016-05-24 >> >> > Yeah, that's really something that covers only a narrow case, though >> > if we don't have it when we need it we're limited to some hacks. >> > Perhaps people who have the adv

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-05-24 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Michael Paquier 2016-05-24 > > > Yeah, that's really something that covers only a narrow case, though > > if we don't have it when we need it we're limited to some hacks. > > Perhaps people who have the advanced level to use such a thing have > > the level to use hacks

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-05-24 Thread Christoph Berg
Re: Michael Paquier 2016-05-24 > Yeah, that's really something that covers only a narrow case, though > if we don't have it when we need it we're limited to some hacks. > Perhaps people who have the advanced level to use such a thing have > the level to use hacks anyway.. I'd think recovery_targ

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-05-23 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 24 May 2016 at 09:12, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Today somebody has pointed me out that it could be interesting to be >> able to recovery up to a given LSN position. One argument behind that >> was to allow a maximum of thi

Re: [HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-05-23 Thread Craig Ringer
On 24 May 2016 at 09:12, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > Today somebody has pointed me out that it could be interesting to be > able to recovery up to a given LSN position. One argument behind that > was to allow a maximum of things to recover up to the point where a > relation block got cor

[HACKERS] LSN as a recovery target

2016-05-23 Thread Michael Paquier
Hi all, Today somebody has pointed me out that it could be interesting to be able to recovery up to a given LSN position. One argument behind that was to allow a maximum of things to recover up to the point where a relation block got corrupted by a specific record because of a broken segment. So t