Re: [BUGS] BUG #7728: Trouble installing postgresql for the first time

The EnterpriseDB's osx installer for PostgreSQL 9.2 supports only Mac OSX version 10.6 and above and it seems you are trying to use it on 10.5.8 On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:51 PM, wrote: > The following bug has been logged on the website: > > Bug reference: 7728 > Logged by: Marco Se

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

Andres Freund writes: > What I dislike with what you committed is that the state you're > investigating during the pause isn't the one youre going to end up > recoveryApply == true. That seems dangerous to me, even if its going to > be reworked in HEAD. Agreed, but it's been like that since the p

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: >> Right now if I'm doing a PITR and want to look around before blessing >> the restore, I have to: >> [ do painful stuff ] > > Yeah. The worst thing about this is the cost of stepping too far > forward, but I doubt we can do

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 2012-12-05 18:35:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2012-12-05 16:15:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> That's fine, but the immediate question is what are we doing to fix > >> the back branches. I think everyone is clear that we should be testing > >> LocalHotStandbyActive r

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 5 December 2012 22:23, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> The argument for this is that although we might fetch a slightly stale >>> value of the shared variable, it can't be very stale --- certainly no >>> older than the spinlock acqu

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

Andres Freund writes: > On 2012-12-05 16:15:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> That's fine, but the immediate question is what are we doing to fix >> the back branches. I think everyone is clear that we should be testing >> LocalHotStandbyActive rather than precursor conditions to see if a pause >> is

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The argument for this is that although we might fetch a slightly stale >> value of the shared variable, it can't be very stale --- certainly no >> older than the spinlock acquisition near the bottom of the previous >> iterat

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > The argument for this is that although we might fetch a slightly stale > value of the shared variable, it can't be very stale --- certainly no > older than the spinlock acquisition near the bottom of the previous > iteration of the loop. And this

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 2012-12-05 16:15:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: > > On 5 December 2012 18:48, Tom Lane wrote: > >> On further thought, it seems like recovery_pause_at_target is rather > >> misdesigned anyway, and taking recovery target parameters from > >> recovery.conf is an obsolete API tha

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

Simon Riggs writes: > Yep, thats fine. > Are you doing this or do you want me to? Don't mind either way. I've got a patch for most of it already, so happy to do it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to yo

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 5 December 2012 21:15, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> On 5 December 2012 18:48, Tom Lane wrote: >>> On further thought, it seems like recovery_pause_at_target is rather >>> misdesigned anyway, and taking recovery target parameters from >>> recovery.conf is an obsolete API that was d

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

Simon Riggs writes: > On 5 December 2012 18:48, Tom Lane wrote: >> On further thought, it seems like recovery_pause_at_target is rather >> misdesigned anyway, and taking recovery target parameters from >> recovery.conf is an obsolete API that was designed in a world before hot >> standby. What I

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 5 December 2012 18:48, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: >>> On 2012-12-05 17:24:42 +, Simon Riggs wrote: So ISTM that we should make recoveryStopsHere() return false while we are inconsistent. Problems solved. > >>> I prefer the previous (fixed) behaviour where

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

Jeff Janes writes: > Right now if I'm doing a PITR and want to look around before blessing > the restore, I have to: > [ do painful stuff ] Yeah. The worst thing about this is the cost of stepping too far forward, but I doubt we can do much about that --- WAL isn't reversible and I can't see us

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 2012-12-05 13:48:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > >> On 2012-12-05 17:24:42 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > >>> So ISTM that we should make recoveryStopsHere() return false while we > >>> are inconsistent. Problems solved. > > >> I prefer the previous (fixed) behavio

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > The real question here probably needs to be "what is the point of > recoveryPauseAtTarget in the first place?". I find it hard to envision > what's the point of pausing unless the user has an opportunity to > make a decision about whether to cont

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

I wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> On 2012-12-05 17:24:42 +, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> So ISTM that we should make recoveryStopsHere() return false while we >>> are inconsistent. Problems solved. >> I prefer the previous (fixed) behaviour where we error out if we reach a >> recovery target befo

Re: [BUGS] PostgreSQL v8.1.11 compatibility with OS 2008 R2

On 12/4/2012 1:38 AM, Duggirala, Manikanth (TCS) wrote: Can you please let us know if PostgreSQL v8.1.11 is compatible with OS 2008 R2 ? 8.1.anything shouldn't be installed today, its an obsolete deprecated version. that said, IIRC, there were major issues with versions prior to 8.3 on

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

Andres Freund writes: > On 2012-12-05 17:24:42 +, Simon Riggs wrote: >> So ISTM that we should make recoveryStopsHere() return false while we >> are inconsistent. Problems solved. > I prefer the previous (fixed) behaviour where we error out if we reach a > recovery target before we are consis

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 2012-12-05 17:24:42 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 December 2012 17:17, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > The recovery target and the consistency point are in some ways in > > conflict. If the recovery target is before the consistency point there > > is no point in stopping there, whether or not we pa

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 5 December 2012 17:17, Simon Riggs wrote: > The recovery target and the consistency point are in some ways in > conflict. If the recovery target is before the consistency point there > is no point in stopping there, whether or not we pause. What we should > do is say "recovery target reached,

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 5 December 2012 16:40, Tom Lane wrote: > The real question here probably needs to be "what is the point of > recoveryPauseAtTarget in the first place?". I find it hard to envision > what's the point of pausing unless the user has an opportunity to > make a decision about whether to continue a

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 2012-12-05 18:08:01 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2012-12-05 11:40:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > > > Basically the whole logical arround recoveryApply seems to be broken > > > currently. Because if recoveryApply=false we currently don't pause at > > > all because we j

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 2012-12-05 11:40:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > Basically the whole logical arround recoveryApply seems to be broken > > currently. Because if recoveryApply=false we currently don't pause at > > all because we jump out of the apply loop with the break. > > Huh? That brea

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

Andres Freund writes: > Basically the whole logical arround recoveryApply seems to be broken > currently. Because if recoveryApply=false we currently don't pause at > all because we jump out of the apply loop with the break. Huh? That break is after the pause: /*

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 2012-12-05 11:11:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2012-12-05 13:34:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> @@ -5883,6 +5889,17 @@ StartupXLOG(void) > >> } while (record != NULL && recoveryContinue); > >> > >> /* > >> + * We've reached stop point, but not yet

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

Andres Freund writes: > On 2012-12-05 13:34:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote: >> @@ -5883,6 +5889,17 @@ StartupXLOG(void) >> } while (record != NULL && recoveryContinue); >> >> /* >> + * We've reached stop point, but not yet applied last >> + * record. Pause AFT

Re: [BUGS] PostgreSQL v8.1.11 compatibility with OS 2008 R2

This is not a bug report. Please post any future questions to a more appropriate list: http://www.postgresql.org/community/lists/ Duggirala, Manikanth (TCS) wrote: > Can you please let us know if PostgreSQL v8.1.11 is compatible > with OS 2008 R2 ? No, it's not. Problems with PostgreSQL versio

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 5 December 2012 14:33, Andres Freund wrote: > Independent of this patch, I am slightly confused about the whole stop > logic. Isn't the idea that you can stop/start/stop/start/... recovery? > Because if !recoveryApply we break out of the whole recovery loop and > are done with things. You can

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 2012-12-05 14:33:36 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 December 2012 13:34, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > Aboriginal bug extends back to 9.0. > > I don't see any bug in 9.0 and 9.1, just 9.2+ Well the pausing logic is clearly broken in 9.1 as well, isn't it? I.e. you will get: LOG: recovery has paus

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 5 December 2012 13:34, Simon Riggs wrote: > Aboriginal bug extends back to 9.0. I don't see any bug in 9.0 and 9.1, just 9.2+ -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsq

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 2012-12-05 13:34:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 December 2012 02:27, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > >>> But the key is, the database was not actually consistent at that > >>> point, and so opening hot standby was a dangerous thing to do. > >>> > >>> The bug that allowed the d

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

Andres Freund writes: > On 2012-12-05 19:06:55 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> So what status are we on? Are we going to release 9.2.2 as it is? >> Or withdraw current 9.2.2? > Releasing as-is sounds good. As Tom wrote upthread: > On 2012-12-04 21:27:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> This is not a regr

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 5 December 2012 02:27, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >>> But the key is, the database was not actually consistent at that >>> point, and so opening hot standby was a dangerous thing to do. >>> >>> The bug that allowed the database to open early (the original topic if >>> this email c

[BUGS] PostgreSQL v8.1.11 compatibility with OS 2008 R2

Hello Team, Can you please let us know if PostgreSQL v8.1.11 is compatible with OS 2008 R2 ? Thanks, Manikanth Duggirala Misc. Apps Support Team TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES Maharashtra,INDIA. Contact : +918983412923 E-mail : manikanth.duggir...@bp.com

Re: [BUGS] BUG #7722: extract(epoch from age(...)) appears to be broken

Dear Mr. Herrera and Mr. Momjian, thank you for your feedback and for explaining that age() better not be used. On Monday 03 December 2012 03:05:57 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > The problem is that age() returns 30 days in one case, and "one month" in > the other; extract() then considers the month as

[BUGS] BUG #7728: Trouble installing postgresql for the first time

The following bug has been logged on the website: Bug reference: 7728 Logged by: Marco Selten Email address: marco_a...@hotmail.com PostgreSQL version: 9.2.1 Operating system: mac os x version 10.5.8 Description: i have no experience with databases at all. i download

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 2012-12-05 19:06:55 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > So what status are we on? Are we going to release 9.2.2 as it is? > Or withdraw current 9.2.2? Releasing as-is sounds good. As Tom wrote upthread: On 2012-12-04 21:27:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > This is not a regression because the pause logic i

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

So what status are we on? Are we going to release 9.2.2 as it is? Or withdraw current 9.2.2? -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp > Andres Freund writes: >> On 2012-12-04 21:27:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> So the upsh

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

On 5 December 2012 00:35, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> So apparently this is something we broke since Nov 18. Don't know what >> yet --- any thoughts? > > Further experimentation shows that reverting commit > ffc3172e4e3caee0327a7e4126b5e7a3c8a1c8cf makes it work. So there's > something wrong/i