On 2013-09-09 18:43:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Andres Freund
> > wrote:
> >> So, a very slightly updated patch attached.
>
> > Committed.
>
> Hmm ... shouldn't this patch adjust the error messages in
> CommandCounterIncrement? We just t
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2013-09-09 18:43:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm ... shouldn't this patch adjust the error messages in
>> CommandCounterIncrement?
> Hm. You're talking about "cannot have more than 2^32-2 commands in a
> transaction"? If so, the patch and the commit seem to have adjust
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> So, a very slightly updated patch attached.
> Committed.
Hmm ... shouldn't this patch adjust the error messages in
CommandCounterIncrement? We just took away one possible command.
It's pretty nitpicky, especially sin
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > Oh. I hadn't looked at the patch, but I had (mis)read what Robert said
>> > to think that you were proposing introducing InvalidCommandId = 0x
>> > while leaving FirstCommandId alone. That would make more sense to me as
>> > (1) i
On 2013-09-05 14:37:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2013-09-05 14:21:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Ideally I'd have made InvalidCommandId = 0 and FirstCommandId = 1,
> >> but I suppose we can't have that without an on-disk compatibility break.
>
> > The patch actually do
On 2013-09-05 21:02:44 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-05 14:37:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > On 2013-09-05 14:21:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Ideally I'd have made InvalidCommandId = 0 and FirstCommandId = 1,
> > >> but I suppose we can't have that without
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Ideally I'd have made InvalidCommandId = 0 and FirstCommandId = 1,
>> but I suppose we can't have that without an on-disk compatibility break.
>
> The patch actually does change it exactly that way. My argument for that
> being valid is that
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2013-09-05 14:21:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ideally I'd have made InvalidCommandId = 0 and FirstCommandId = 1,
>> but I suppose we can't have that without an on-disk compatibility break.
> The patch actually does change it exactly that way.
Oh. I hadn't looked at th
Hi,
Thanks for weighin in.
On 2013-09-05 14:21:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > OK. Consider me more of a -0 than a -1. Like I say, I don't really
> > want to block it; I just don't feel comfortable committing it unless a
> > few other people say something like "I don't see
Robert Haas writes:
> OK. Consider me more of a -0 than a -1. Like I say, I don't really
> want to block it; I just don't feel comfortable committing it unless a
> few other people say something like "I don't see a problem with that".
FWIW, I've always thought it was a wart that there wasn't a
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-05 12:44:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > On 2013-09-03 11:40:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> > 0002 wal_decoding: Introduce InvalidCommandId and declare that to be
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-03 11:40:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > 0002 wal_decoding: Introduce InvalidCommandId and declare that to be the
>> > new maximum for CommandCounterIncrement
>>
>> I'm still unconvinced we want this.
>
> Ok, so the reason for t
On 2013-09-05 12:44:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-09-03 11:40:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> > 0002 wal_decoding: Introduce InvalidCommandId and declare that to be the
> >> > new maximum for CommandCounterIncrement
> >>
> >> I'
On 2013-09-03 11:40:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > 0002 wal_decoding: Introduce InvalidCommandId and declare that to be the
> > new maximum for CommandCounterIncrement
>
> I'm still unconvinced we want this.
Ok, so the reason for the existance of this patch is that currently
there is no way to
14 matches
Mail list logo
