On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 08/22/2017 11:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> WARNING: what you did is ok, but you might have wanted to do something else
>>>
>>> First of all, whether or not that can properly b
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/22/2017 11:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> WARNING: what you did is ok, but you might have wanted to do something else
>>
>> First of all, whether or not that can properly be called a warning is
>> highly debatable. Also, if you do tha
On 08/22/2017 11:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> WARNING: what you did is ok, but you might have wanted to do something else
>
> First of all, whether or not that can properly be called a warning is
> highly debatable. Also, if you do that sort of thing to your spouse
> and/or children, they cal
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> It seems to me that we should discuss whether we want to keep the some
> syntax such as 'a,b', 'N(a,b)' before thinking whether or not that
> making the quorum commit the default behavior of 'N(a,b)' syntax. If
> we plan to remove such synt
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> I had in mind a ereport(WARNING) in create_syncrep_config. Extra
>> thoughts/opinions welcome.
>
> I think for v10 we should just document the behavior we've got; I
> think it's too
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> I had in mind a ereport(WARNING) in create_syncrep_config. Extra
> thoughts/opinions welcome.
I think for v10 we should just document the behavior we've got; I
think it's too late to be whacking things around now.
For v11, we could emit a
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> FWIW, in my opinion if tte current behavior of 'N(a,b)' could confuse
>>> users and we want to break the backward
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> FWIW, in my opinion if tte current behavior of 'N(a,b)' could confuse
>> users and we want to break the backward compatibility, I'd rather like
>> to remove that style in Postgr
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> FWIW, in my opinion if tte current behavior of 'N(a,b)' could confuse
> users and we want to break the backward compatibility, I'd rather like
> to remove that style in PostgreSQL 10 and to raise an syntax error to
> user for more safety. A
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/09/2017 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
This item appears under "decisions to recheck mid-beta". If anyone is
>
On 08/09/2017 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> This item appears under "decisions to recheck mid-beta". If anyone is going
>>> to push for a change here, now is the time.
>>
>> It h
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> This item appears under "decisions to recheck mid-beta". If anyone is going
>> to push for a change here, now is the time.
>
> It has been 1 week since the previous mail. I though that
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:55:37AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 06/04/17 03:51, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Dec 1
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:55:37AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 06/04/17 03:51, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Reg
At Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:21:29 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not good at composition, so I cannot insist on my
> >> proposal. For the convenience of others, her
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:22:59 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
>> >> Please observe the policy on open item ownership[1] and send a status
>> >> update
>> >> within three calendar days of this message. Include a date for your
>> >> s
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not good at composition, so I cannot insist on my
>> proposal. For the convenience of others, here is the proposal
>> from Fujii-san.
>>
>
> Do you see any problem with the
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>
> I'm not good at composition, so I cannot insist on my
> proposal. For the convenience of others, here is the proposal
> from Fujii-san.
>
Do you see any problem with the below proposal? To me, this sounds reasonable.
> + A quorum
At Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:22:59 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> >> Please observe the policy on open item ownership[1] and send a status
> >> update
> >> within three calendar days of this message. Include a date for your
> >> subsequent status update.
> >
> > Okay, so our consensus is to alway
At Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:13:12 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
in
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > wrote:
> >> Ok, I got the point.
> >>
> >> At Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:39:01 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro
> >> HO
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:34:34PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:20:05PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> Ok, I got the point.
>>
>> At Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:39:01 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> wrote in
>> <20170419.173901.16598616.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:34:34PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:20:05PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:52:53PM +0900, Masahiko S
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Ok, I got the point.
>
> At Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:39:01 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote in
> <20170419.173901.16598616.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
>> > >> |
>> > >> | Quorum-based synchronous replicati
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:34:34PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:20:05PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:52:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Noa
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:20:05PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:52:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Fuj
At Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:20:05 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:52:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Fuji
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:52:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:52:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Noah Mis
Ok, I got the point.
At Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:39:01 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20170419.173901.16598616.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > >> |
> > >> | Quorum-based synchronous replication is basically more
> > >> | efficient than priority-based one wh
At Wed, 19 Apr 2017 03:03:38 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
in
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > wrote:
> >> At Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:58:50 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> >> wrote in
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:51:02PM -0400, Noah Misch wrot
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:51:02PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> At Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:58:50 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote in
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Masahiko Sawa
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:58:50 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Masahiko S
At Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:58:50 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Noah Mis
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> O
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:51:02PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fu
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:51:02PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > > >> (2)
> > > >> There will be stil
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:51:02PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > >> (2)
> > >> There will be still many source comments and documentations that
> > >> we need to update,
On 13 April 2017 at 18:47, Fujii Masao wrote:
> But on second thought, I don't think that reporting NULL as the priority when
> quorum-based sync replication is used is less confusing. When there is async
> standby, we report 0 as its priority when synchronous_standby_names is empty
> or a priori
At Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:47:46 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> I'm thinking that it's less confusing to report always 0 as the priority of
> >> async standby whatever the sett
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> I'm thinking that it's less confusing to report always 0 as the priority of
>> async standby whatever the setting of synchronous_standby_names is.
>> Thought?
>
> Or we could have prio
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I'm thinking that it's less confusing to report always 0 as the priority of
> async standby whatever the setting of synchronous_standby_names is.
> Thought?
Or we could have priority being reported to NULL for async standbys as
well, the prior
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:17:31 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote in
>>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:17:31 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noa
Hello,
At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:17:31 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fuji
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> >> Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We shou
On 06/04/17 03:51, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We should work on
a
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We should work on
> >> and complete them until the release.
> >>
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We should work on
>> and complete them until the release.
>>
>> (1)
>> Which synchronous replication method, priority or quorum, sh
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We should work on
> and complete them until the release.
>
> (1)
> Which synchronous replication method, priority or quorum, should be
> chosen when neither FIRST nor ANY is specified
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Tue, 20 Dec 2016 23:47:22 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
> in
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> > wrote:
>> >> Do we need to consider the sorting met
At Tue, 20 Dec 2016 23:47:22 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
in
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >> Do we need to consider the sorting method and the selecting k-th
> >> latest LSN method?
> >
> > Honestly,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> Do we need to consider the sorting method and the selecting k-th
>> latest LSN method?
>
> Honestly, nah. Tests are showing that there are many more bottlenecks
> before that wi
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>> Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We should work on
>> and complete them until the release.
>
> Please list these in https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Open_Items so that we
> don't forget.
Yep, added!
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Do we need to consider the sorting method and the selecting k-th
> latest LSN method?
Honestly, nah. Tests are showing that there are many more bottlenecks
before that with just memory allocation and parsing.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgs
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> Attached is the modified version of the patch. Barring objections, I will
>>> commit this version.
>>
>> There is a whitespa
Fujii Masao wrote:
> Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We should work on
> and complete them until the release.
Please list these in https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Open_Items so that we
don't forget.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL De
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Attached is the modified version of the patch. Barring objections, I will
>> commit this version.
>
> There is a whitespace:
> $ git diff master --check
> src/backend/replication/sync
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Attached is the modified version of the patch. Barring objections, I will
> commit this version.
There is a whitespace:
$ git diff master --check
src/backend/replication/syncrep.c:39: trailing whitespace.
+ *
> Even after committing the patc
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> Attached latest v12 patch.
>>> I changed behavior of "N (standby_list)" to use the priority method
>>> and incorporat
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> Attached latest v12 patch.
>> I changed behavior of "N (standby_list)" to use the priority method
>> and incorporated some review comments so far. Please review it.
>
> Some com
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached latest v12 patch.
> I changed behavior of "N (standby_list)" to use the priority method
> and incorporated some review comments so far. Please review it.
Some comments...
+Another example of synchronous_standby_names for mult
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:20:53 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Fujii Masao
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Mich
At Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:20:53 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Michael Paquier
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Fujii Ma
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
If we drop the "standby_list" syntax, I don't think that ne
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>
>> So I'd like to propose to keep the backward compatibility fully for s_s_names
>> (i.e., both "standby_list" and "N (st
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> If we drop the "standby_list" syntax, I don't think that new parameter is
>>> necessary. We can keep s_s_names and just dro
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> If we drop the "standby_list" syntax, I don't think that new parameter is
>> necessary. We can keep s_s_names and just drop the support for that syntax
>> from s_s_names. This may be
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> If we drop the "standby_list" syntax, I don't think that new parameter is
> necessary. We can keep s_s_names and just drop the support for that syntax
> from s_s_names. This may be ok if we're really in "break all the things" mode
> for Postgr
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:46:06 +0530, Amit Kapila
> wrote in
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada
At Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:46:06 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Amit Kapila
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Amit Kapila
>>> wrote:
Few comments:
>>>
>>> Thank you for reviewing.
>>>
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Michael Paquier
wrot
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
You could do that, but first I would code up the simplest, cleane
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> You could do that, but first I would code up the simplest, cleanest
>>> algorithm you can think of and see if it even shows
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> You could do that, but first I would code up the simplest, cleanest
>> algorithm you can think of and see if it even shows up in a 'perf'
>> profile. Microbenchmarking is probably overk
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> You could do that, but first I would code up the simplest, cleanest
> algorithm you can think of and see if it even shows up in a 'perf'
> profile. Microbenchmarking is probably overkill here unless a problem
> is visible on macrobenchmarks.
T
Hello, context switch was complete that time, sorry.
There's multiple "target LET"s. So we need kth-largest LTEs.
At Wed, 7 Dec 2016 19:04:23 +0900, Michael Paquier
wrote in
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Sorry, I could not understand this algorithm. Could you el
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> So, isn't it better to compare the performance of some algorithms and
>> confirm which is the best for quorum commit? Since this code is hot, i.e.,
>> can be very frequently executed,
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Indeed, I haven't thought about that, and that's a no-brainer. That
>> would remove the need to allocate and sort each array, what is simply
>> needed is to track the number of tim
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> Aside from measurement of the two sorting methods, I'd like to
>> point out that quorum commit basically doesn't need
>> sorting. Counting conforming santdbys while scanning the
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Aside from measurement of the two sorting methods, I'd like to
> point out that quorum commit basically doesn't need
> sorting. Counting conforming santdbys while scanning the
> walsender(receiver) LSN list comparing with the target LSN is
At Wed, 7 Dec 2016 13:26:38 +0900, Michael Paquier
wrote in
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > So, isn't it better to compare the performance of some algorithms and
> > confirm which is the best for quorum commit? Since this code is hot, i.e.,
> > can be very frequently e
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> So, isn't it better to compare the performance of some algorithms and
> confirm which is the best for quorum commit? Since this code is hot, i.e.,
> can be very frequently executed, I'd like to avoid waste of cycle as much
> as possible.
It se
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>>>
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> If M (i.e., number of quorum sync standbys) is enough large,
>> your choice would be good. But usually M seems not so large.
>>
>
> Thank you for the comment.
>
> One another possible id
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>>> wrote:
Attached latest version patch incorporated review
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> Attached latest version patch incorporated review comments. After more
>>> thought, I agree and changed the valu
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> Attached latest version patch incorporated review comments. After more
>>> thought, I agree and changed the valu
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> Attached latest version patch incorporated review comments. After more
>> thought, I agree and changed the value of standby priority in quorum
>> method so that it's not set 1
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached latest version patch incorporated review comments. After more
> thought, I agree and changed the value of standby priority in quorum
> method so that it's not set 1 forcibly. The all standby priorities are
> 1 If s_s_names = 'ANY(*
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
+ if (SyncRepConfig->sync_method == SYNC_REP
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> + if (SyncRepConfig->sync_method == SYNC_REP_PRIORITY)
>>> + return SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority(am_sy
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> + if (SyncRepConfig->sync_method == SYNC_REP_PRIORITY)
>> + return SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority(am_sync);
>> + else /* SYNC_REP_QUORUM */
>> + return SyncRepGe
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
