Hi,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:09 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> Only the sysadmin is actually going to know which makes more sense.
> Unless we start tieing WAL parameters to the database size or
> something like that.
Agreed. And, if a user doesn't want to make a new base backup because
of a large data
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Heikki
Linnakangas wrote:
> The archive should not normally contain partial XLOG files, only if you
> manually copy one there after primary has crashed. So I don't think
> that's something we need to support.
You are right. And, if the last valid record exists
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Heikki
> Linnakangas wrote:
>> Rick Gigger wrote:
>>> If you use an rsync like algorithm for doing the base backups wouldn't
>>> that increase the size of the database for which it would still be
>>> practical to
On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Heikki
Linnakangas wrote:
Rick Gigger wrote:
If you use an rsync like algorithm for doing the base backups
wouldn't
that increase the size of the database for which it would still be
practical to just re-sync?
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Heikki
Linnakangas wrote:
> Rick Gigger wrote:
>> If you use an rsync like algorithm for doing the base backups wouldn't
>> that increase the size of the database for which it would still be
>> practical to just re-sync? Couldn't you in fact sync a very large
>> da
Rick Gigger wrote:
> If you use an rsync like algorithm for doing the base backups wouldn't
> that increase the size of the database for which it would still be
> practical to just re-sync? Couldn't you in fact sync a very large
> database if the amount of actual change in the files was a small
>
On Jul 16, 2009, at 12:07 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Le 15 juil. 09 à 23:03, Heikki Linnakangas a écrit :
Furthermore, the counter-argument against having the primary
able to send data from the archives to some standby is that it should
still work when primary's dead,
Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Heikki
> Linnakangas wrote:
>> 1. Change the way synchronization is done when standby connects to
>> primary. After authentication, standby should send a message to primary,
>> stating the point (where is an XLogRecPtr, not a WAL
>> segment na
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Heikki
Linnakangas wrote:
> I don't think there's much point assigning more reviewers to Synch Rep
> at this point. I believe we have consensus on four major changes:
Thanks for clarifying the issues! Okey, I'll rework the patch.
> 1. Change the way synchroni
Hi,
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> I think a better way to address that need is to provide a built-in
> mechanism for the standby to request a base backup and have it sent over
> the wire. That makes the initial setup very easy.
Great idea :)
So I'll reproduce the sketch I did in this other mail
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Le 15 juil. 09 à 23:03, Heikki Linnakangas a écrit :
>> 2. The primary should have no business reading back from the archive.
>> The standby can read from the archive, as it can today.
>
> Sorry to insist, but I'm not sold on your consensus here, yet:
> http://archives.
Le 15 juil. 09 à 23:03, Heikki Linnakangas a écrit :
2. The primary should have no business reading back from the archive.
The standby can read from the archive, as it can today.
Sorry to insist, but I'm not sold on your consensus here, yet:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-0
Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> So I think you should update ASAP in this case.
>
> I updated the patch as described in
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg00865.php
>
> All the other parts are still the same.
>
>> As so
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> If the above is OK, should I update the patch ASAP? or
> suspend that update until many other comments arrive?
> I'm concerned that frequent small updating interferes with
> a review.
I decided (perhaps foolishly), to assign reviewers for the
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Heikki
Linnakangas wrote:
> Here's one little thing in addition to all the stuff already discussed:
Thanks for the comment!
> If that's the only such caller, let's introduce a new function for that
> and keep the XLogFlush() api unchanged.
OK. How about the
Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> This patch no longer applies cleanly. Can you rebase and resubmit it
>>> for the upcoming CommitFest? It might also be good to go through and
>>> clean up the various places where you have trailing whitespace and/or
>>> s
16 matches
Mail list logo
