On 23.12.2012 16:37, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
I found another "requested timeline does not contain minimum recovery point"
error scenario in HEAD:
1. Set up the master 'M', one standby 'S1', and
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>>> On 06.12.2012 15:39, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:53 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
On 21 December 2012 18:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 21.12.2012 01:50, Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> Now I'm getting this on all standbys after promoting the first standby in
>> a
>> chain.
>>
> > ...
>
> > TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((sentPtr)<**= (SendRqstPtr)))", File:
> > "walsender.c", Line: 1425
On 21.12.2012 01:50, Thom Brown wrote:
Now I'm getting this on all standbys after promoting the first standby in a
chain.
> ...
> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((sentPtr)<= (SendRqstPtr)))", File:
> "walsender.c", Line: 1425)
Sigh. I'm sounding like a broken record, but I just committed another
fix
On 20 December 2012 12:45, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 17.12.2012 15:05, Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> I just set up 120 chained standbys, and for some reason I'm seeing these
>> errors:
>>
>> LOG: replication terminated by primary server
>> DETAIL: End of WAL reached on timeline 1
>> LOG: record w
> I just committed a patch that should make the "requested WAL segment
> 00020003 has already been removed" errors go away.
> The
> trick was for walsenders to not switch to the new timeline until at
> least one record has been replayed on it. That closes the window
> where
> the
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>> On 06.12.2012 15:39, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:53 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 05.12.2012 14:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On
On 2012-12-20 14:45:05 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 17.12.2012 15:05, Thom Brown wrote:
> >I just set up 120 chained standbys, and for some reason I'm seeing these
> >errors:
> >
> >LOG: replication terminated by primary server
> >DETAIL: End of WAL reached on timeline 1
> >LOG: record
On 17.12.2012 15:05, Thom Brown wrote:
I just set up 120 chained standbys, and for some reason I'm seeing these
errors:
LOG: replication terminated by primary server
DETAIL: End of WAL reached on timeline 1
LOG: record with zero length at 0/301EC10
LOG: fetching timeline history file for tim
Heikki,
The next time I get the issue, and I'm not paying for 5 cloud servers by the
hour, I'll give you a login.
--Josh
- Original Message -
> On 19.12.2012 17:27, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 19.12.2012 15:55, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> On 19.12.2012 04:57, Josh Berkus wrote:
Heikki,
> The problem goes away after some time, after the 1st standby has
> streamed the contents of 00020003 and written it to
> disk, and the cascaded standby reconnects. But it would be nice to
> avoid
> that situation. I'm not sure how to do that yet, we might need to
> track
On 19.12.2012 17:27, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 19.12.2012 15:55, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 19.12.2012 04:57, Josh Berkus wrote:
Heikki,
I ran into an unexpected issue while testing. I just wanted to fire up
a chain of 5 replicas to see if I could connect them in a loop.
However, I ran in
On 19.12.2012 15:55, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 19.12.2012 04:57, Josh Berkus wrote:
Heikki,
I ran into an unexpected issue while testing. I just wanted to fire up
a chain of 5 replicas to see if I could connect them in a loop.
However, I ran into a weird issue when starting up "r3": it refus
On 19.12.2012 04:57, Josh Berkus wrote:
Heikki,
I ran into an unexpected issue while testing. I just wanted to fire up
a chain of 5 replicas to see if I could connect them in a loop.
However, I ran into a weird issue when starting up "r3": it refused to
come out of "the database is starting up"
Heikki,
I ran into an unexpected issue while testing. I just wanted to fire up
a chain of 5 replicas to see if I could connect them in a loop.
However, I ran into a weird issue when starting up "r3": it refused to
come out of "the database is starting up" mode until I did a write on
the master.
Since Thom already did the destruction test, I only chained 7 standbies,
just to see if I could reproduce his error.
In the process, I accidentally connected one standby to itself. This
failed, but the error message wasn't very helpful; it just gave me
"FATAL: could not connect, the database syste
On 17 December 2012 12:07, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 15.12.2012 01:09, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> Tested this on yesterday's snapshot. Worked great.
>>
>
> Thanks for the testing!
>
>
> Now I wanna test a chain of cascading replicas ... how far can we chain
>> these?
>>
>
> There's no limit in
On 15.12.2012 01:09, Josh Berkus wrote:
Tested this on yesterday's snapshot. Worked great.
Thanks for the testing!
Now I wanna test a chain of cascading replicas ... how far can we chain
these?
There's no limit in theory. I tested with one master and two chained
standbys myself. Give it a
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 06.12.2012 15:39, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:53 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05.12.2012 14:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:01 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
Heikki,
Tested this on yesterday's snapshot. Worked great.
Test:
4 Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Cloud Servers (GoGrid)
Configuration:
Compiled 9.3(12-12-12)
with: pg_stat_statements, citext, ISN, btree_gist, pl/perl
Setup Test:
Master-Master
Replicated to: master-replica using pg_basebackup -x.
> From: Heikki Linnakangas [mailto:hlinnakan...@vmware.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:22 PM
> To: Amit Kapila
> Cc: 'PostgreSQL-development'; 'Thom Brown'
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Switching timeline over streaming replication
>
> On 06.12.2012
On 06.12.2012 15:39, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:53 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 05.12.2012 14:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:01 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
After some diversions to fix bugs and refactor existing code, I've
committed a coup
On Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:53 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05.12.2012 14:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:01 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> After some diversions to fix bugs and refactor existing code, I've
> >> committed a couple of small parts of this pat
On 05.12.2012 14:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:01 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
After some diversions to fix bugs and refactor existing code, I've
committed a couple of small parts of this patch, which just add some
sanity checks to notice incorrect PITR scenarios. Here'
On Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:01 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> After some diversions to fix bugs and refactor existing code, I've
> committed a couple of small parts of this patch, which just add some
> sanity checks to notice incorrect PITR scenarios. Here's a new version
> of the main patch b
After some diversions to fix bugs and refactor existing code, I've
committed a couple of small parts of this patch, which just add some
sanity checks to notice incorrect PITR scenarios. Here's a new version
of the main patch based on current HEAD.
- Heikki
streaming-tli-switch-8.patch.gz
Des
On 03.12.2012 14:21, senthilnathan wrote:
Is this patch available in version 9.2.1 ?
Nope, this is for 9.3.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Is this patch available in version 9.2.1 ?
Senthil
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Switching-timeline-over-streaming-replication-tp5723547p5734744.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On 26.11.2012 14:53, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Friday, November 23, 2012 7:03 PM Heikki Linnakangas
This is what I came up with. It adds a new function, OpenFile, that
returns a raw file descriptor like BasicOpenFile, but the file
descriptor is associated with the current subtransaction and
automati
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Monday, November 26, 2012 7:01 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Hmm, if it's just for locking purposes, how about using a lwlock or a
>> heavy-weight lock instead?
> Its not only for lock, the main idea is that we create temp file and write
> modified configuration in that
On Monday, November 26, 2012 7:01 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 26.11.2012 14:53, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I have one usecase in feature (SQL Command to edit postgresql.conf)
> very
> > similar to OpenFile/CloseFile, but I want that when CloseFile is
> called from
> > abort, it should remove(unli
On 26.11.2012 14:53, Amit Kapila wrote:
I have one usecase in feature (SQL Command to edit postgresql.conf) very
similar to OpenFile/CloseFile, but I want that when CloseFile is called from
abort, it should remove(unlink) the file as well and during open it has to
retry few times if open is not s
On Friday, November 23, 2012 7:03 PM Heikki Linnakangas
> On 15.11.2012 17:16, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 15.11.2012 16:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> >>> This is a fairly general issue, actually. Looking around, I can see
> >>> at least two similar cases in existing co
On 15.11.2012 17:16, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 15.11.2012 16:55, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
This is a fairly general issue, actually. Looking around, I can see at
least two similar cases in existing code, with BasicOpenFile, where we
will leak file descriptors on error:
Um,
On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:36 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 20.11.2012 15:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Defect-2:
> > 1. start primary A
> > 2. start standby B following A
> > 3. start cascade standby C following B.
> > 4. Start another standby D following C.
> > 5
On 20.11.2012 15:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
Defect-2:
1. start primary A
2. start standby B following A
3. start cascade standby C following B.
4. Start another standby D following C.
5. Execute the following commands in the primary A.
create table tbl(f int);
On Monday, November 19, 2012 10:54 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 10.10.2012 17:54, Thom Brown wrote:
> > Hmm... I get something different. When I promote standby B, standby
> > C's log shows:
> >
> > The following problems are observed while testing of the patch.
> > Defect-1:
> >
> >
On 10.10.2012 17:54, Thom Brown wrote:
> Hmm... I get something different. When I promote standby B, standby
> C's log shows:
>
> LOG: walreceiver ended streaming and awaits new instructions
> LOG: re-handshaking at position 0/400 on tli 1
> LOG: fetching timeline history file for timeline
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:05 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 15.11.2012 12:44, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Here's an updated version of this patch, rebased with master,
> > including the recent replication timeout changes, and some other
> cleanup.
> >
> > On 12.10.2012 09:34, Amit Kapil
On 15.11.2012 16:55, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
This is a fairly general issue, actually. Looking around, I can see at
least two similar cases in existing code, with BasicOpenFile, where we
will leak file descriptors on error:
Um, don't we automatically clean those up during t
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> This is a fairly general issue, actually. Looking around, I can see at
> least two similar cases in existing code, with BasicOpenFile, where we
> will leak file descriptors on error:
Um, don't we automatically clean those up during transaction abort?
If we don't, we
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:05 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 15.11.2012 12:44, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Here's an updated version of this patch, rebased with master,
> > including the recent replication timeout changes, and some other
> cleanup.
> >
> > On 12.10.2012 09:34, Amit Kapil
On 15.11.2012 12:44, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Here's an updated version of this patch, rebased with master, including
the recent replication timeout changes, and some other cleanup.
On 12.10.2012 09:34, Amit Kapila wrote:
The test is finished from myside.
one more issue:
> ...
./pg_basebac
On 10.10.2012 17:26, Amit Kapila wrote:
36.+SendTimeLineHistory(TimeLineHistoryCmd *cmd) { ..
if (nread<= 0)
+ereport(ERROR,
+(errcode_for_file_access(),
+ errmsg("could not read file
\"%s\
Here's an updated version of this patch, rebased with master, including
the recent replication timeout changes, and some other cleanup.
On 12.10.2012 09:34, Amit Kapila wrote:
The test is finished from myside.
one more issue:
> ...
./pg_basebackup -P -D ../../data_sub -X fetch -p 2303
pg_bas
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Attached is a new version of the patch. I committed the refactoring
> of XLogPageRead() already, as that was a readability improvement
> even without this patch. All the reported issues should be fixed
> now, although I will continue testing this tomorrow. I added vario
> -Original Message-
> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
> ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:57 PM
> To: 'Heikki Linnakangas'
> Cc: 'PostgreSQL-development'
> Subje
On 10 October 2012 15:26, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 09, 2012 10:32 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 06.10.2012 15:58, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > One more test seems to be failed. Apart from this, other tests are
>> passed.
>> >
> It seems there is one more defect, please check the s
On Tuesday, October 09, 2012 10:32 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 06.10.2012 15:58, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > One more test seems to be failed. Apart from this, other tests are
> passed.
> >
It seems there is one more defect, please check the same
Defect:
1. start primary A
2. s
On 06.10.2012 15:58, Amit Kapila wrote:
One more test seems to be failed. Apart from this, other tests are passed.
2. a. Master M-1
b. Standby S-1 follows M-1
c. insert 10 records on M-1. verify all records are visible on M-1,S-1
d. Stop S-1
e. insert 2 records on M-1.
f. Sto
On 4 October 2012 18:07, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>> On 03.10.2012 18:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:21 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Hmm, should a base backup be aborted when the standby is promoted?
On 04.10.2012 20:07, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
But I wonder why promoting a standby renders the backup invalid in the first
place? Fujii, Simon, can you explain that?
Simon had the same question and I answered it before.
http://archives.postgresql.o
On Thursday, October 04, 2012 7:22 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 03, 2012 8:45 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:21 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > Thanks for the thorough review! I committed the xlog.c refactoring
> > patch
> > > now. Attac
On Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:40 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03.10.2012 18:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > 35.WalSenderMain(void)
> > {
> > ..
> > +if (walsender_shutdown_requested)
> > +ereport(FATAL,
> > +
> (errcode(ERRCODE_ADMIN_SHUTDOWN),
> > +
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 4 October 2012 17:23, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Perhaps we could make walsenders even more like regular backends than what I
>> was proposing, so that the replication commands are parsed and executed just
>> like regular utility commands. However, that'd require some t
On 4 October 2012 17:23, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04.10.2012 19:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
>>>
>>> So I propose the attached patch. I made small changes to postgres.c to
>>> make it call exec_replication_command() instead of exec_simple_query(),
>>> and reject exte
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 03.10.2012 18:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:21 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm, should a base backup be aborted when the standby is promoted? Does
>>> the promotion render the backup corrupt?
>>
>
On 04.10.2012 19:00, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
So I propose the attached patch. I made small changes to postgres.c to
make it call exec_replication_command() instead of exec_simple_query(),
and reject extend query protocol, in a WAL sender process. A lot of code
related to hand
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> So I propose the attached patch. I made small changes to postgres.c to
> make it call exec_replication_command() instead of exec_simple_query(),
> and reject extend query protocol, in a WAL sender process. A lot of code
> related to handling the main command loop an
On 03.10.2012 18:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
35.WalSenderMain(void)
{
..
+if (walsender_shutdown_requested)
+ereport(FATAL,
+(errcode(ERRCODE_ADMIN_SHUTDOWN),
+ errmsg("terminating r
> On Wednesday, October 03, 2012 8:45 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:21 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Thanks for the thorough review! I committed the xlog.c refactoring
> patch
> > now. Attached is a new version of the main patch, comments on specific
> > points be
On 03.10.2012 18:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:21 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Hmm, should a base backup be aborted when the standby is promoted? Does
the promotion render the backup corrupt?
I think currently it does so. Pls refer
1.
do_pg_stop_backup(char *labelfile,
On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:21 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Thanks for the thorough review! I committed the xlog.c refactoring patch
> now. Attached is a new version of the main patch, comments on specific
> points below. I didn't adjust the docs per your comments yet, will do
> that next.
I
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 6:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:29 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 25.09.2012 10:08, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 24.09.2012 16:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> In any case, it will be better if you can split it into multiple
> patches:
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:29 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 25.09.2012 10:08, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 24.09.2012 16:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> In any case, it will be better if you can split it into multiple
> patches:
> >> 1. Having new functionality of "Switching timeline ov
On 27-09-2012 01:30, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I understood this point, but currently in documentation of Timelines, this
> usecase is not documented (Section 24.3.5).
>
Timeline documentation was written during PITR implementation. There wasn't SR
yet. AFAICS it doesn't cite SR but is sufficiently ge
On 09/26/2012 01:02 AM, m...@rpzdesign.com wrote:
John:
Who has the money for oracle RAC or funding arrogant bastard Oracle
CEO Ellison to purchase another island?
Postgres needs CHEAP, easy to setup, self healing,
master-master-master-master and it needs it yesterday.
I was able to patch
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 6:30 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Yes that is correct. I thought timeline change happens only when
> somebody
> > does PITR.
> > Can you please tell me why we change timeline after promotion,
> because the
> > original
> > Timeline concept was for PITR and I am no
Josh:
The good part is you are the first person to ask for a copy
and I will send you the hook code that I have and you can be a good sport
and put it on GitHub, that is great, you can give us both credit for a
joint effort, I do the code,
you put it GitHub.
The not so good part is that the co
> Yes that is correct. I thought timeline change happens only when somebody
> does PITR.
> Can you please tell me why we change timeline after promotion, because the
> original
> Timeline concept was for PITR and I am not able to trace from code the
> reason
> why on promotion it is requi
> I was able to patch the 9.2.0 code base in 1 day and change my entire
> architecture strategy for replication
> into self healing async master-master-master and the tiniest bit of
> sharding code imaginable
Sounds cool. Do you have a fork available on Github? I'll try it out.
--
Josh Berku
John:
Who has the money for oracle RAC or funding arrogant bastard Oracle CEO
Ellison to purchase another island?
Postgres needs CHEAP, easy to setup, self healing,
master-master-master-master and it needs it yesterday.
I was able to patch the 9.2.0 code base in 1 day and change my entire
On 09/25/12 11:01 AM, m...@rpzdesign.com wrote:
At some point, every master - slave replicator gets to the point where
they need
to start thinking about master-master replication.
master-master and transactional integrity are mutually exclusive, except
perhaps in special cases like Oracle
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:01 AM, m...@rpzdesign.com wrote:
> Amit:
>
> At some point, every master - slave replicator gets to the point where they
> need
> to start thinking about master-master replication.
Even in a master-master system, the ability to cleanly swap leaders
managing a member of
Amit:
At some point, every master - slave replicator gets to the point where
they need
to start thinking about master-master replication.
Instead of getting stuck in the weeds to finally realize that
master-master is the ONLY way
to go, many developers do not start out planning for master - m
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:29 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 25.09.2012 10:08, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 24.09.2012 16:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> In any case, it will be better if you can split it into multiple
> patches:
> >> 1. Having new functionality of "Switching timeline ov
On 25.09.2012 14:10, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:39 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 24.09.2012 16:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:53 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I've been working on the often-requested feature to handle timeline
changes ove
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:39 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 24.09.2012 16:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:53 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> I've been working on the often-requested feature to handle timeline
> >> changes over streaming replication. At th
On 24.09.2012 16:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:53 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I've been working on the often-requested feature to handle timeline
changes over streaming replication. At the moment, if you kill the
master and promote a standby server, and you have anoth
> On Monday, September 24, 2012 9:08 PM m...@rpzdesign.com wrote:
> What a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe the only replication should be
> master-master replication
> so there is no need to sequence timelines or anything, all servers are
> ready masters, no backups or failovers.
> If you really
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:53 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I've been working on the often-requested feature to handle timeline
> changes over streaming replication. At the moment, if you kill the
> master and promote a standby server, and you have another standby
> server that you'd like t
81 matches
Mail list logo
