Simon Riggs writes:
> Cleaning the archive directory, not the pg_xlog directory.
Hence the choice of the directory where to act. I was slow on that,
sorry guys.
I guess my main problem here is that I still picture PostgreSQL has
being able to maintain an archive with no external script in the si
On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 12:21 +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Fujii Masao writes:
> > In SR, WAL files in the pg_xlog directory on the standby are recycled
> > by every restartpoints. So your proposed function seems not to be helpful
> > even if hot_standby = on.
>
> Then I guess I'm at a loss her
Fujii Masao writes:
> In SR, WAL files in the pg_xlog directory on the standby are recycled
> by every restartpoints. So your proposed function seems not to be helpful
> even if hot_standby = on.
Then I guess I'm at a loss here: what is the pg_archivecleanup utility
good for in a standby?
--
di
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
wrote:
> I now realize that my proposal ain't helping if Streaming Replication is
> filling the standby's pg_xlog and hot_standby = off. I don't remember
> that SR rebuilds pg_xlog on the standby though, does it?
In SR, WAL files in the pg_xlog di
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
I still read
here from time to time that contrib's chapter is maintaining working
examples of extensibility, not maintaining production ready add-ons.
Even if this were true, and I don't believe it is, ISTM the solution
would be to have a utility command alongside
Robert Haas writes:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> The purpose of making this a standalone executable is
>>> so that people who have, for example, multiple standbys, can customize
>>> the logic without having to hack the backend. Pushing this into the
>>> backend would defeat that goal; plus, it wo
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I'm a bit perplexed here. The archive cleanup has to run on the
>> standby, not the master, right? Whereas pg_switch_xlog() can only run
>> on the master.
>
> I used it just to show a possible use case, easy to gr
Robert Haas writes:
> I'm a bit perplexed here. The archive cleanup has to run on the
> standby, not the master, right? Whereas pg_switch_xlog() can only run
> on the master.
I used it just to show a possible use case, easy to grasp. Sorry if
that's confusing instead.
> The purpose of making
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine writes:
>> Also, should I try to send a patch implementing my proposal (internal
>> command exposed as a function at the SQL level, and while at it, maybe
>> the internal command "pg_archive_bypass" to mimic /usr/bin/true
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Here's the code.
I haven't more than glanced at this, but +1 for committing it if
you're confident it DTRT.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pg
Dimitri Fontaine writes:
> Also, should I try to send a patch implementing my proposal (internal
> command exposed as a function at the SQL level, and while at it, maybe
> the internal command "pg_archive_bypass" to mimic /usr/bin/true as an
> archive_command)?
I had to have a try at it, even if
Dimitri Fontaine writes:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
>> So to clean up all WAL files older than those needed by that base backup,
>> you would simply copy-paste that location and call pg_cleanuparchive:
>>
>> pg_cleanuparchive /walarchive/ 0001002F
>
> Ok, idle though: what about
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> So to clean up all WAL files older than those needed by that base backup,
> you would simply copy-paste that location and call pg_cleanuparchive:
>
> pg_cleanuparchive /walarchive/ 0001002F
Ok, idle though: what about having a superuser-only SRF doing
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 22:49 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 10/06/10 22:24, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> >> Maybe we could add a new pg_cleanuparchive binary, but we'll need some
> >> discussion...
> >
> > Would this binary ever be used manually, not invoked by Po
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> Maybe we could add a new pg_cleanuparchive binary, but we'll need some
> discussion...
Would this binary ever be used manually, not invoked by PostgreSQL? As
it depends on the %r option to be given and to be right, I don't think
so.
Therefore my take on this problem
On 10/06/10 22:24, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
Maybe we could add a new pg_cleanuparchive binary, but we'll need some
discussion...
Would this binary ever be used manually, not invoked by PostgreSQL? As
it depends on the %r option to be given and to be right, I don't th
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/06/10 17:38, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I think my logic needs a tiny piece of adjustment, to ignore the
timeline segment of the file name.
I'm not sure you should ignore it. Presumably anything in an older
timeline is indeed not required anymore and can be remove
On 10/06/10 17:38, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I think my logic needs a tiny piece of adjustment, to ignore the
timeline segment of the file name.
I'm not sure you should ignore it. Presumably anything in an older
timeline is indeed not required anymore and can be removed, and anything
in a newer t
Robert Haas wrote:
It won't kill us to change that sentence. "pg_standby is only used now
within the cleanup command" etc
pg_standby already contains the exact logic we need here. Having two
sets of code for the same thing isn't how we do things.
Well, we could factor out that part of t
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 10:18 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 09/06/10 10:21, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 18:30 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> >
>> >> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their
>
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 10:18 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 09/06/10 10:21, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 18:30 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their
> >> principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSH
On 09/06/10 10:21, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 18:30 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their
principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSHO.
More importantly, we should include an example in the docs. I created
one
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 18:30 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their
> principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSHO.
>
> More importantly, we should include an example in the docs. I created
> one the other day when this was
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 11:18 +0900, Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > I think we're replacing restartpoint_command, not recovery_end_command.
>
> Ah, sorry. I did the same replacement for restartpoint_command
> in _, -, and camel case words.
>
> BTW, should we also have a release n
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Takahiro Itagaki
wrote:
>
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think we're replacing restartpoint_command, not recovery_end_command.
>
> Ah, sorry. I did the same replacement for restartpoint_command
> in _, -, and camel case words.
Gah. Perhaps one of these days we will s
Robert Haas wrote:
> I think we're replacing restartpoint_command, not recovery_end_command.
Ah, sorry. I did the same replacement for restartpoint_command
in _, -, and camel case words.
BTW, should we also have a release note for the command?
I added a simple description for it in the patch.
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Takahiro Itagaki
wrote:
>
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> >> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their
>> >> principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNS
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Takahiro Itagaki
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> >> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their
>> >> principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSHO.
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan writes:
> >> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their
> >> principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSHO.
> >
> > Weak preference for archive_cleanup_command here.
>
>
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their
>> principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSHO.
>
> Weak preference for archive_cleanup_command here.
OK, sounds like we have consensus on
Tom Lane wrote:
As for the language choice, my first thought is +1 for perl over shell,
mainly because it might be directly useful to people on Windows while
shell never would be. On the other hand, if it's possible to do a
useful one-liner in shell then let's do it that way.
I don't thin
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their
> principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSHO.
Weak preference for archive_cleanup_command here.
> More importantly, we should include an example in the docs. I created
> one the other day
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 11:37 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
One awkward omission in the new built-in standby mode, mainly used for
streaming replicati
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 17:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 11:37 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>
> >>> One awkward omission in the new built-in standby mode, m
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 11:37 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>>> One awkward omission in the new built-in standby mode, mainly used for
>>> streaming replication, is that there is no ea
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 11:37 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> One awkward omission in the new built-in standby mode, mainly used for
>> streaming replication, is that there is no easy way to delete old
>> archived files like you do with the
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 11:37 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> One awkward omission in the new built-in standby mode, mainly used for
> streaming replication, is that there is no easy way to delete old
> archived files like you do with the %r parameter to restore_command.
> This was discussed at
>
Committed.
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> One awkward omission in the new built-in standby mode, mainly used for
> streaming replication, is that there is no easy way to delete old
> archived files like you do with the %r parameter to restore_command.
> This was discussed at
> http://archives.postgre
Greg Stark wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>> One awkward omission in the new built-in standby mode, mainly used for
>> streaming replication, is that there is no easy way to delete old
>> archived files like you do with the %r parameter to restore_command.
>
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> One awkward omission in the new built-in standby mode, mainly used for
> streaming replication, is that there is no easy way to delete old
> archived files like you do with the %r parameter to restore_command.
I'm still finding this kin
40 matches
Mail list logo
