Hi,
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> While Simon stated it a bit strongly, I think it's important that you alert
> people if you think you have to remove existing features in order to make
> easy standby possible.
Now, I think that any existing capabilities don't need to be r
Fujii,
Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing capabilities
Good
unless necessary.
That is not a caveat I will accept, a priori.
While Simon stated it a bit strongly, I think it's important that you
alert people if you think you have to remove existing features in order
to m
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 23:21 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Fujii,
>
> >> Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing capabilities
> >
> > Good
> >
> >> unless necessary.
> >
> > That is not a caveat I will accept, a priori.
>
> While Simon stated it a bit strongly
My intention was only
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Currently walmgr.py is doing everything from setting up replica to
getting up-to-last-second changes to slave's disk.
If walmgr.py and its cousins had good documentation there would possibly
be much greater acceptance of them.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hack
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 12:21 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 22:17 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> > > Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need. If the above will remove all the
> > > B.S. currently associated with actually doing PITR (rsync, scp, nfs,
> > > pg_standby pick your p
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 22:17 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need. If the above will remove all the
> > B.S. currently associated with actually doing PITR (rsync, scp, nfs,
> > pg_standby pick your poison) then I am all for it.
>
> If you use walmgr.py, then all you
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 17:36 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
> > > wrote:
> > > > Could you please let me know
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:02 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:50 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any exist
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:50 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing
>> > > > capabilities
>> > >
>> > >
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:50 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing capabilities
> > >
> > > Good
> > >
> > > > unless necessary.
>
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:50 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > >
> > > Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing capabilities
> >
> > Good
> >
> > > unless necessary.
> >
> > That is not a caveat I will acce
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > That is exactly what I am against. Note the words "get rid of".
> > >
> > > This prevents parallel data transfer, use of split mirrors and variou
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> I believe so, see second bullet point in:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/3f0b79eb0902240751t13231593g17fbef70664d4...@mail.gmail.com
Cool.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 16:11 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> OK, so let's assume that we'll provide an extra facility that doesn't
> take anything away but which provides for close to zero config setup for
> the simple case. Frankly, that's what the vast majority of people want,
> in my experien
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > That is exactly what I am against. Note the words "get rid of".
> >
> > This prevents parallel data transfer, use of split mirrors and various
> > other techniques. It sounds n
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> That is exactly what I am against. Note the words "get rid of".
>
> This prevents parallel data transfer, use of split mirrors and various
> other techniques. It sounds neater, but it implies removal of useful
> features.
OK, ISTM that my
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
I think the more relevant question right now is whether the work Fujii
Masao is planning to do for 8.5 is reponsive to the following comment
from Heikki:
# IMHO, the synchronous replica
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > I think the more relevant question right now is whether the work Fujii
> > Masao is planning to do for 8.5 is reponsive to the following comment
> > from Heikki:
> >
> > # IMHO, the synchronous replication isn't
Robert Haas wrote:
I think the more relevant question right now is whether the work Fujii
Masao is planning to do for 8.5 is reponsive to the following comment
from Heikki:
# IMHO, the synchronous replication isn't in such good shape, I'm
afraid. I've said
# this before, but I'm not happy with t
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> I didn't think I had proposed any such thing, although maybe I'm just
>> not remembering. I'm pretty confused as to what the current thread is
>> all about.
>
> http://archives.postgre
Bruce Momjian wrote:
K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) wrote:
Hi,
Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features
that are still to be developed in the respective patches?
I'am currently referring the wiki: "Todo and Claim" for NTT and
for HotStandby, i see that almost all issues
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I didn't think I had proposed any such thing, although maybe I'm just
> not remembering. I'm pretty confused as to what the current thread is
> all about.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg00978.php
I don't think any
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> It seems to me that in previous discussions of Streaming Replication,
> Heikki put forward the proposition that the standby server should be
> able to connect to the primary and stream not only newly-generated WAL
> but also, if necessary,
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 18:48 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
>
> I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
> users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of us
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:53 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> >> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
>> > I am against removing an existing capability that is
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> So far, everything has been couched in terms of remove the way it is now
> and put in its place something "better". Heikki and Josh have said that
> or similar, as has Robert Haas on another thread, and Fujii-san
> specifically said "get r
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:53 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
> >>
> >
> > I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
> > users.
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:25 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Right. I was made a bit nervous by Joshua's comments, but somewhat
> reassured by his reference back to Heikki's comments. If we can make
> common cases simple to implement, that's great, as long as we don't
> lose functionality needed t
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Presumably we'll keep the capability to restore from a backup and restore
> from WAL archive as well, when those are available. Keeping that capability
> shouldn't add many lines of code.
Yes, I assume that only missing WAL files (
>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>>> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
>>
>> I am against removing an existing capability that is important to
>> some users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of
>
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of users that
would be affected, or how t
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of users that
would be affected, or how to count them.
--
Simon Rig
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 17:36 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
> > wrote:
> > > Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are
> > > still to be develop
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
wrote:
Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are still
to be developed in the respective patches?
I'am currently referring
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
> wrote:
> > Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are
> > still to be developed in the respective patches?
> >
> > I'am currently referring th
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
wrote:
> Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are still
> to be developed in the respective patches?
>
> I'am currently referring the wiki: "Todo and Claim" for NTT and for
> HotStandby, i see t
K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features
> that are still to be developed in the respective patches?
>
> I'am currently referring the wiki: "Todo and Claim" for NTT and
> for HotStandby, i see that almost all issues are close
Hi,
Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are still
to be developed in the respective patches?
I'am currently referring the wiki: "Todo and Claim" for NTT and for HotStandby,
i see that almost all issues are closed. Are there any features / refactoring /
bugs st
38 matches
Mail list logo
