On 2014-04-24 09:46:07 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2014-04-24 09:39:21 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > I can't find that this discussion actually came to a proper consensus,
> > but
> > > I may be missing something. Did we go w
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-04-24 09:39:21 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I can't find that this discussion actually came to a proper consensus,
> but
> > I may be missing something. Did we go with pg_recvlogical just because we
> > couldn't decide on a bette
On 2014-04-24 09:39:21 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I can't find that this discussion actually came to a proper consensus, but
> I may be missing something. Did we go with pg_recvlogical just because we
> couldn't decide on a better name, or did we intentionally decide it was the
> best?
I went
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > I still find it wierd/inconsistent to have:
> > * pg_receivexlog
> > * pg_recvlogical
> > binaries, even from the same source directory. Why once "pg_recv" and
> > once "pg_recei
On 09/27/2013 05:18 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi Steve,
On 2013-09-27 17:06:59 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
I've determined that when in this test the walsender seems to be hitting
this when it is decode the transactions that are behind the slonik
commands to add tables to replication (set add tab
Hi Steve,
On 2013-09-27 17:06:59 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
> >I've determined that when in this test the walsender seems to be hitting
> >this when it is decode the transactions that are behind the slonik
> >commands to add tables to replication (set add table, set add sequence).
> >This is befor
On 09/26/2013 02:47 PM, Steve Singer wrote:
I've determined that when in this test the walsender seems to be
hitting this when it is decode the transactions that are behind the
slonik commands to add tables to replication (set add table, set add
sequence). This is before the SUBSCRIBE SET i
On 09/25/2013 01:20 PM, Steve Singer wrote:
On 09/25/2013 11:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-09-25 11:01:44 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
On 09/17/2013 10:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
This patch set now fails to apply because of the commit "Rename
various
"freeze multixact" variables".
And I
On 09/25/2013 11:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-09-25 11:01:44 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
On 09/17/2013 10:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
This patch set now fails to apply because of the commit "Rename various
"freeze multixact" variables".
And I am even partially guilty for that patch...
Re
On 2013-09-25 11:01:44 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 09/17/2013 10:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >This patch set now fails to apply because of the commit "Rename various
> >"freeze multixact" variables".
> >And I am even partially guilty for that patch...
> >
> >Rebased patches attached.
>
> Whi
On 09/17/2013 10:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
This patch set now fails to apply because of the commit "Rename various
"freeze multixact" variables".
And I am even partially guilty for that patch...
Rebased patches attached.
While testing the logical replication changes against my WIP logical
s
On 09/24/2013 11:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Not having a consumer of the walsender interface included sounds like a
bad idea to me, even if it were only useful for testing. Now, you could
argue it should be in /contrib - and I wouldn't argue against that
except it shares code with the rest of sr
On 2013-09-24 11:04:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> - Requiring a client is a short-sighted design. There's no reason we
> shouldn't *support* having a client, but IMHO it shouldn't be the only
> way to use the feature.
There really aren't many limitations preventing you from doing anything
else.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> There needs to be a client acking the reception of the data in some
> form. There's currently two output methods, SQL and walstreamer, but
> there easily could be further, it's basically two functions you have
> write.
>
> There are several r
On 2013-09-23 23:12:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> What exactly is the purpose of this tool? My impression is that the
> "output" of logical replication is a series of function calls to a
> logical replication plugin, but does that plugin necessarily have to
> produce an output format that gets st
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> The existence of a tool like
> pg_receivellog seems to presuppose that the goal is spit out logical
> change records as text, but I'm not sure that's actually going to be a
> very common thing to want to do...
Sure, but I think it's still wort
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Andres Freund escribió:
>> On 2013-09-23 13:47:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> > I had proposed pg_recvlogical
>>
>> I still find it wierd/inconsistent to have:
>> * pg_receivexlog
>> * pg_recvlogical
>> binaries, even from the same sou
On 9/23/13 12:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I still find it wierd/inconsistent to have:
> * pg_receivexlog
> * pg_recvlogical
> binaries, even from the same source directory. Why once "pg_recv" and
> once "pg_receive"?
It's consistent because they are the same length!
(Obviously, this would sever
Andres Freund escribió:
> On 2013-09-23 13:47:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I had proposed pg_recvlogical
>
> I still find it wierd/inconsistent to have:
> * pg_receivexlog
> * pg_recvlogical
> binaries, even from the same source directory. Why once "pg_recv" and
> once "pg_receive"?
Well.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I still find it wierd/inconsistent to have:
> * pg_receivexlog
> * pg_recvlogical
> binaries, even from the same source directory. Why once "pg_recv" and
> once "pg_receive"?
+1
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Andres Freund escribió:
> On 2013-09-20 14:15:23 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I have a little bit of feedback that I forgot to mention in my earlier
> > reviews, because I thought it was too trivial then: something about
> > the name pg_receivellog annoys me in a way that the name
> > pg_recei
On 2013-09-23 13:47:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund escribió:
> > On 2013-09-20 14:15:23 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > I have a little bit of feedback that I forgot to mention in my earlier
> > > reviews, because I thought it was too trivial then: something about
> > > the nam
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> pg_receivelogical? Protest now or forever hold your peace.
I was thinking pg_receiveloglog, but that works just as well.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your s
On 2013-09-20 14:15:23 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I have a little bit of feedback that I forgot to mention in my earlier
> reviews, because I thought it was too trivial then: something about
> the name pg_receivellog annoys me in a way that the name
> pg_receivexlog does not. Specifically, it
On 09/20/2013 06:33 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
The points I find daunting are the semantics, like:
* How do we control whether a standby is allowed prevent WAL file
removal. What if archiving is configured?
* How do we control whether a standby is allowed to peg xmin?
* How long do we pe
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> More generally, the thing that bugs me about this approach is that
>> logical replication is not really special, but what you've done here
>> MAKES it special. There are plenty of other situations where we are
>> too aggressive about holding
Hi,
On 2013-09-19 12:05:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> No question. I'm not saying that that optimization shouldn't go in
> right after the main patch does, but IMHO right now there are too many
> things going in the 0004 patch to discuss them all simultaneously.
> I'd like to find a way of split
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> - Looking specifically at the 0004 patch, I think that the
>> RecentGlobalDataXmin changes are logically separate from the rest of
>> the patch, and that if we're going to commit them at all, it should be
>> separate from the rest of this.
Hi Robert,
On 2013-09-19 10:02:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > Rebased patches attached.
>
> I spent a bit of time looking at these patches yesterday and today.
> It seems to me that there's a fair amount of stylistic cleanup that is
>
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Rebased patches attached.
I spent a bit of time looking at these patches yesterday and today.
It seems to me that there's a fair amount of stylistic cleanup that is
still needed, and some pretty bad naming choices, and some FIXMEs that
shou
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-17 09:45:28 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 9/15/13 11:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > On 2013-09-15 11:20:20 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 22:49 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> >>> Attached you c
On 9/15/13 11:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-15 11:20:20 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 22:49 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Attached you can find the newest version of the logical changeset
>>> generation patchset.
>>
>> You probably have bigger things to worry
On 2013-09-15 11:20:20 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 22:49 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Attached you can find the newest version of the logical changeset
> > generation patchset.
>
> You probably have bigger things to worry about, but please check the
> results of cplus
On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 22:49 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> Attached you can find the newest version of the logical changeset
> generation patchset.
You probably have bigger things to worry about, but please check the
results of cpluspluscheck, because some of the header files don't
include header f
On 2013-09-15 10:03:54 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> What's with 0001-Improve-regression-test-for-8410.patch? Did you mean
> to include that?
Gah, no. That's already committed and unrelated. Stupid wildcard.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadr
What's with 0001-Improve-regression-test-for-8410.patch? Did you mean
to include that?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
36 matches
Mail list logo
