On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hi, the attached is the v5 patch.
>
> - Do feGetCurrentTimestamp() only when necessary.
> - Rebased to current master
>
>
> At Mon, 2 Mar 2015 20:21:36 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
> in
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Hi, the attached is the v5 patch.
- Do feGetCurrentTimestamp() only when necessary.
- Rebased to current master
At Mon, 2 Mar 2015 20:21:36 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > Hello, the attached is the v4 patch that checks feedback t
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello, the attached is the v4 patch that checks feedback timing
> every WAL segments boundary.
>
> At Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:29:14 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote in
> <20150220.172914.241732690.horiguchi.kyot...@la
Hello, the attached is the v4 patch that checks feedback timing
every WAL segments boundary.
At Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:29:14 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20150220.172914.241732690.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > Some users may complain about the performance impact
Hello,
At Thu, 19 Feb 2015 19:22:21 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
in
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > Hello, this is the last patch for pg_basebackup/pg_receivexlog on
> > master (9.5). Preor versions don't have this issue.
> >
> > 4. basebackup_reply_fix_mst_v2.pat
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello, this is the last patch for pg_basebackup/pg_receivexlog on
> master (9.5). Preor versions don't have this issue.
>
> 4. basebackup_reply_fix_mst_v2.patch
> receivelog.c patch applyable on master.
>
> This is based on the same des
Hello, this is the last patch for pg_basebackup/pg_receivexlog on
master (9.5). Preor versions don't have this issue.
4. basebackup_reply_fix_mst_v2.patch
receivelog.c patch applyable on master.
This is based on the same design with
walrcv_reply_fix_91_v2.patch in the aspect of gettimeofday().
Thank you for the comment. Three new patches are attached. I
forgot to give a revision number on the previous patch, but I
think this is the 2nd version.
1. walrcv_reply_fix_94_v2.patch
Walreceiver patch applyable on master/REL9_4_STBLE/REL9_3_STABLE
2. walrcv_reply_fix_92_v2.patch
Walrecei
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The attached patch is fix for walreciever not using gettimeofday,
> and fix for receivelog using it.
>
>> > XLogWalRcvProcessMsg doesn't send feedback when processing
>> > 'w'=WAL record packet. So the same thing as pg_baseback
Hi,
15 19:48:23 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20150210.194823.219136034.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Considering pg_basebackup/receivexlog, the loop in receivelog.c
> does not maintain the time value within it, so I think we are
> forced to use feGetCurrentTimeS
Hello,
The attached patch is fix for walreciever not using gettimeofday,
and fix for receivelog using it.
> > XLogWalRcvProcessMsg doesn't send feedback when processing
> > 'w'=WAL record packet. So the same thing as pg_basebackup and
> > pg_receivexlog will occur on walsender.
> >
> > Exiting th
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Sorry, I misunderstood that.
>
>> > At Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:22:39 +0900, Fujii Masao
>> > wrote in
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > I'm very sorry for confused report. The problem found i
Sorry, I misunderstood that.
> > At Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:22:39 +0900, Fujii Masao
> > wrote in
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> >> wrote:
> >> > I'm very sorry for confused report. The problem found in 9.4.0
> >> > and the diagnosis was mistakenly done on master.
> >
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:22:39 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
> in
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> wrote:
>> > I'm very sorry for confused report. The problem found in 9.4.0
>> > and the diagnosis was mistake
Hello,
At Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:22:39 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > I'm very sorry for confused report. The problem found in 9.4.0
> > and the diagnosis was mistakenly done on master.
> >
> > 9.4.0 has no problem of feedback delay cau
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> I'm very sorry for confused report. The problem found in 9.4.0
> and the diagnosis was mistakenly done on master.
>
> 9.4.0 has no problem of feedback delay caused by slow xlog
> receiving on pg_basebackup mentioned in the previous mail. B
I'm very sorry for confused report. The problem found in 9.4.0
and the diagnosis was mistakenly done on master.
9.4.0 has no problem of feedback delay caused by slow xlog
receiving on pg_basebackup mentioned in the previous mail. But
the current master still has this problem.
regards,
At Mon, 02
Hello, I received an report that pg_basebackup with "-X stream"
always exits with the following error.
> pg_basebackup: could not receive data from WAL stream: server closed the
> connection unexpectedly
> This probably means the server terminated abnormally
> before or while proc
18 matches
Mail list logo
