Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-12-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> Interesting. I got just today a bug report that is actually a symptom >>> that people should be careful about: it is

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-12-16 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Interesting. I got just today a bug report that is actually a symptom >> that people should be careful about: it is possible that >> pg_stat_replication reports 1/potential for s

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-12-16 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > >> I've applied these two patches now. > >> > >> The one that fixes the initialization backpatched to 9.3 which is

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-12-15 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> I've applied these two patches now. >> >> The one that fixes the initialization backpatched to 9.3 which is the oldest >> one that has it, and the one that changes the actual 0-vs-

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-12-13 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I've applied these two patches now. > > The one that fixes the initialization backpatched to 9.3 which is the oldest > one that has it, and the one that changes the actual 0-vs-NULL output to 9.5 > only as it's a behaviour change. Thanks!

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-12-13 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Michael Paquier < > michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> > I'm only ta

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-11-26 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> > I'm only talking about the actual value in pg_stat_replication here, not >> > what we are using internally. These

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-11-26 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I'm only talking about the actual value in pg_stat_replication here, not > > what we are using internally. These are two different things of course - > > let's keep them separate

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-11-26 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I'm only talking about the actual value in pg_stat_replication here, not > what we are using internally. These are two different things of course - > let's keep them separate for now. In pg_stat_replication, we explicitly > check for Invalid

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-11-26 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Michael Paquier < >> michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Magnus Hagander >>> wrote: >>> >> In part

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-11-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Michael Paquier < > michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Magnus Hagander >> wrote: >> > In particular, it seems that in InitWalSenderSlot, we only initialize the >>> sen

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-11-25 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Magnus Hagander >> wrote: >> >>> Are the values for the log locations really relevant for backup >>> connections? And if they are, we

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-11-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > >> Are the values for the log locations really relevant for backup >> connections? And if they are, we need to document it :) ISTM we are just >> more or less leaking random d

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-11-25 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Are the values for the log locations really relevant for backup > connections? And if they are, we need to document it :) ISTM we are just > more or less leaking random data out there? > > I'm talking about the actual state=backup connect

[HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

2015-11-25 Thread Magnus Hagander
Are the values for the log locations really relevant for backup connections? And if they are, we need to document it :) ISTM we are just more or less leaking random data out there? I'm talking about the actual state=backup connection - not the connection if we're using -x with pg_basebackup. Where