On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:11 AM, David Steele wrote:
> On 8/31/17 4:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the new version. This looks fine to me.
>>
>> Committed to REL9_6_STABLE with minor wordsmithing.
>
> The edits look good to me
On 8/31/17 4:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Thanks for the new version. This looks fine to me.
>
> Committed to REL9_6_STABLE with minor wordsmithing.
The edits look good to me. Thanks, Robert!
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent v
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Thanks for the new version. This looks fine to me.
Committed to REL9_6_STABLE with minor wordsmithing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:02 PM, David Steele wrote:
> On 8/29/17 9:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele wrote:
>>>
>>> Attached is the 9.6 patch. It required a bit more work in func.sgml
>>> than I was expecting so have a close look at that. The rest
Hi Michael,
Thanks for reviewing!
On 8/29/17 9:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele wrote:
>>
>> Attached is the 9.6 patch. It required a bit more work in func.sgml
>> than I was expecting so have a close look at that. The rest was mostly
>> removing i
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On 8/25/17 4:03 PM, David Steele wrote:
>> On 8/25/17 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele
>>> wrote:
No problem. I'll base it on your commit to capture any changes you
made.
Hi Robert,
On 8/25/17 4:03 PM, David Steele wrote:
> On 8/25/17 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele
>> wrote:
>>> No problem. I'll base it on your commit to capture any changes you
>>> made.
>>
>> Thanks, but you incorporated everything I wanted in respon
On 8/25/17 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele wrote:
No problem. I'll base it on your commit to capture any changes you made.
Thanks, but you incorporated everything I wanted in response to my
first review -- so I didn't tweak it any further.
Thank yo
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele wrote:
> No problem. I'll base it on your commit to capture any changes you made.
Thanks, but you incorporated everything I wanted in response to my
first review -- so I didn't tweak it any further.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterpris
On 8/25/17 3:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:10 PM, David Steele wrote:
>>
>> Robert said he would commit this so I expect he'll do that if he doesn't
>> have any objections to the changes.
>>
>> Robert, if you would prefer me to submit this to the CF I'm happy to do so.
>
>
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:10 PM, David Steele wrote:
> On 8/24/17 7:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> True as well. The patch looks good to me. If a committer does not show
>> up soon, it may be better to register that in the CF and wait. I am
>> not sure that adding an open item is suited, as d
On 8/24/17 7:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> True as well. The patch looks good to me. If a committer does not show
> up soon, it may be better to register that in the CF and wait. I am
> not sure that adding an open item is suited, as docs have the same
> problem on 9.6.
Robert said he would c
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:49 PM, David Steele wrote:
> Thanks for reviewing! Sorry for the late response, those eclipses don't
> just chase themselves...
That's quite something to see.
> On 8/20/17 10:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:35 AM, David Steele wrote:
>>
>>
Hi Michael,
Thanks for reviewing! Sorry for the late response, those eclipses don't
just chase themselves...
On 8/20/17 10:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:35 AM, David Steele wrote:
>
> + Prior to PostgreSQL 9.6, this
> Markup ?
Fixed.
> + Note well that if
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:35 AM, David Steele wrote:
> This patch should be sufficient for 10/11 but will need some minor
> changes for 9.6 to remove the reference to wait_for_archive. Note that
> this patch ignores Michael's patch [2] to create WAL history files on a
> standby as this will likel
On 8/18/17 3:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> If you update the patch I'll apply it to 11 and 10.
Attached is the updated patch.
I didn't like the vague "there can be some issues on the server if it
crashes during the backup" so I added a new paragraph at the appropriate
step to give a more detaile
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:58 PM, David Steele wrote:
> OK, but I was trying to make it very clear that this backup method only
> works on a primary. If you think the text is in the first paragraph is
> enough then I'm willing to go with that, though.
Yeah, I think the text is enough.
> Since th
Robert,
Thanks for reviewing!
On 8/18/17 2:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> - the next WAL segment. The reason for the switch is to arrange for
> + the next WAL segment when run on a primary. On a standby you can call
> + pg_switch_wal on the primary to perform a manual
> + switch.
>
- the next WAL segment. The reason for the switch is to arrange for
+ the next WAL segment when run on a primary. On a standby you can call
+ pg_switch_wal on the primary to perform a manual
+ switch.
+ The reason for the switch is to arrange for
Tacking on "when run on a pri
As discussed in [1] our low-level backup documentation does not quite
match the actual behavior of the functions on primary vs. standby.
Since it appears we have decided that the remaining behavioral
differences after 52f8a59dd953c68 are bugs in the documentation, the
attached is a first pass at br
20 matches
Mail list logo
