Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Full page writes improvement, code update
Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 10:22 +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: Without a switch, because both full page writes and corresponding logical log is included in WAL, this will increase WAL size slightly (maybe about five percent or so). If everybody is happy with this, we don't need a switch. Sorry, I still don't understand that. What is the corresponding logical log ? It seems to me, that a full page WAL record has enough info to produce a dummy LSN WAL entry. So insead of just cutting the full page wal record you could replace it with a LSN WAL entry when archiving the log. Then all that is needed is the one flag, no extra space ? The full page write is required for crash recovery, but that isn't required during archive recovery because the base backup provides the safe base. Is that always true? Could the backup not pick up a partially-written page? Assuming it's being written to as the backup is in progress. (We are talking about when disk blocks are smaller than PG blocks here, so can't guarantee an atomic write for a PG block?) -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Full page writes improvement, code update
Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 11:27 +0100, Richard Huxton wrote: Is that always true? Could the backup not pick up a partially-written page? Assuming it's being written to as the backup is in progress. (We are talking about when disk blocks are smaller than PG blocks here, so can't guarantee an atomic write for a PG block?) Any page written during a backup has a backup block that would not be removable by Koichi's tool, so yes, you'd still be safe. i.e. between pg_start_backup() and pg_stop_backup() we always use full page writes, even if you are running in full_page_writes=off mode. Ah, that's OK then. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Continue transactions after errors in psql
Michael Paesold wrote: But people (like me for example) will want to enable this behaviour by default. So they (me too) will put the option in .psqlrc. It is then enabled by default. But then many of my scripts will destroy data instead of just erroring out. I just don't see why non-interactive mode does need such a switch because there is no way to check if there was an error. So just put two queries there and hope one will work? DROP TABLE foo; CREATE TABLE foo... -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PATCHES] Patch for disaster recovery
Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: I think the only real effect of this patch will be to confuse people who are reading the source code. tqual.c is already complicated and fragile enough --- it doesn't need conditionally compiled features that we can't even explain the use of. I need a note somewhere to remember where to tell people to modify the code to recovery something. Do you have a better idea? You want just a comment rather than a define? A short guide to disaster recovery would be useful. There's a real shortage of people qualified to help users in this situation. I feel comfortable in telling them what *not* to do, but nothing more. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PATCHES] There's any version that work on Windows 2000??
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no way to install PostgreSQL 8.0.0 Beta4 and any other version in my windows 2000. No matter what user i use or any kind of configuration option combination it's allways the same. This is the wrong list for reporting installer bugs. You should probably try contacting windows-installer team as it's not part of the core PostgreSQL database anyway. http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pginstaller/ They have bug trackers and mailing lists available. It's worth checking the mailing list archives to see if anyone else has similar problems. Also check the FAQ: http://pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/FAQ_windows.html It notes that firewall/antivirus programs can cause problems - check your logs. For what it's worth, I've not seen reports like yours before, so there could be something different about your Windows 2000 machine versus most people's. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
