Re: [HACKERS] Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: The attached latest patch provides this capability. You can easily set up the synch rep according to the following procedure. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NTT%27s_Development_Projects#How_to_set_up_Synch_Rep This patch no longer applies cleanly. Can you rebase and resubmit it for the upcoming CommitFest? It might also be good to go through and clean up the various places where you have trailing whitespace and/or spaces preceding tabs. It seems this will be one of the big patches for the upcoming CommitFest. Hot Standby seems to be off the table, because Simon has indicated that he thinks Synch Rep should go first, and Heikki has indicated that he's willing to review and commit, but not also play lead developer. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg5.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-06/msg01534.php Given that this is a substantial patch, I have a couple of questions about strategy. First, I am wondering whether this patch should be reviewed (and committed) as a whole, or whether there are distinct chunks of it that should be reviewed and committed separately - particularly the signal handling piece, which AIUI is independently useful. I note that it seems to be included in the tarball as a separate patch file, which is very useful. Second, I am wondering whether Heikki feels that it would be useful to assign round-robin reviewers for this patch, or whether he's going to be the principal reviewer himself. We could assign either a reviewer (or reviewers) to the whole patch, or we could assign reviewers to particular chunks of the patch, such as the signal handling piece. Thanks, ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Second, I am wondering whether Heikki feels that it would be useful to assign round-robin reviewers for this patch, or whether he's going to be the principal reviewer himself. We could assign either a reviewer (or reviewers) to the whole patch, or we could assign reviewers to particular chunks of the patch, such as the signal handling piece. Hmm, taking a look at the wiki, I see that Simon's name is listed for this patch as a reviewer already. Assuming that's a point of view that Simon agrees with and not the result of his name having been added by someone else, I guess the question is whether we need additional reviewers here beyond Heikki and Simon. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby
Robert Haas escribió: Second, I am wondering whether Heikki feels that it would be useful to assign round-robin reviewers for this patch, or whether he's going to be the principal reviewer himself. We could assign either a reviewer (or reviewers) to the whole patch, or we could assign reviewers to particular chunks of the patch, such as the signal handling piece. WRT the signal handling piece, I remember something in that area being committed and then reverted because it had issues. Does this version fix those issues? (Assuming it's the same patch) -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby
Hi, On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: The attached latest patch provides this capability. You can easily set up the synch rep according to the following procedure. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NTT%27s_Development_Projects#How_to_set_up_Synch_Rep This patch no longer applies cleanly. Can you rebase and resubmit it for the upcoming CommitFest? It might also be good to go through and clean up the various places where you have trailing whitespace and/or spaces preceding tabs. Sure. I'll resubmit the patch after fixing some bugs and finishing the documents. Given that this is a substantial patch, I have a couple of questions about strategy. First, I am wondering whether this patch should be reviewed (and committed) as a whole, or whether there are distinct chunks of it that should be reviewed and committed separately - particularly the signal handling piece, which AIUI is independently useful. I note that it seems to be included in the tarball as a separate patch file, which is very useful. I think that the latter strategy makes more sense. At least, the signal handling piece and non-blocking pqcomm (communication between a frontend and a backend) can be reviewed independently of synch rep itself. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby
Hi, On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Alvaro Herreraalvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: WRT the signal handling piece, I remember something in that area being committed and then reverted because it had issues. Does this version fix those issues? (Assuming it's the same patch) Yes. After the patch was reverted, Heikki and I fixed the problems. The problem which was pointed out is: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/14969.1228835...@sss.pgh.pa.us Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: The attached latest patch provides this capability. You can easily set up the synch rep according to the following procedure. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NTT%27s_Development_Projects#How_to_set_up_Synch_Rep This patch no longer applies cleanly. Can you rebase and resubmit it for the upcoming CommitFest? It might also be good to go through and clean up the various places where you have trailing whitespace and/or spaces preceding tabs. Sure. I'll resubmit the patch after fixing some bugs and finishing the documents. Given that this is a substantial patch, I have a couple of questions about strategy. First, I am wondering whether this patch should be reviewed (and committed) as a whole, or whether there are distinct chunks of it that should be reviewed and committed separately - particularly the signal handling piece, which AIUI is independently useful. I note that it seems to be included in the tarball as a separate patch file, which is very useful. I think that the latter strategy makes more sense. At least, the signal handling piece and non-blocking pqcomm (communication between a frontend and a backend) can be reviewed independently of synch rep itself. My preference for ease of CommitFest management would be one thread on -hackers for each chunk that can be separately reviewed and committed. So if there are three severable chunks here, send a patch for each one with a descriptive subject line, and mention the dependencies in the body of the email (before applying this patch, you must first apply blah blah link to archives). That way, we can keep the discussion of each topic separate, have separate entries on the CommitFest page with subjects that match the email thread, etc. Thanks, ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby
Hi, On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote: My preference for ease of CommitFest management would be one thread on -hackers for each chunk that can be separately reviewed and committed. So if there are three severable chunks here, send a patch for each one with a descriptive subject line, and mention the dependencies in the body of the email (before applying this patch, you must first apply blah blah link to archives). That way, we can keep the discussion of each topic separate, have separate entries on the CommitFest page with subjects that match the email thread, etc. That sounds good. I'll submit the patches separately. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
