On 2016-04-06 14:00:20 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 6 April 2016 at 13:48, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> >
> > Yeah... We have reached a clear consensus about the way things should
> > be done after quite a lot of discussions that has gone for a couple of
> > months. And Andres' design on the matt
On 2016-04-06 13:50:24 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 6 April 2016 at 13:27, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2016-04-06 13:11:40 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On 6 April 2016 at 10:09, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > On 2016-04-06 10:04:42 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > The issue there is that w
On 6 April 2016 at 13:48, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Yeah... We have reached a clear consensus about the way things should
> be done after quite a lot of discussions that has gone for a couple of
> months. And Andres' design on the matter is what is getting approval
> from everybody who has worke
On 6 April 2016 at 13:27, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-06 13:11:40 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 6 April 2016 at 10:09, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2016-04-06 10:04:42 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > The issue there is that we continue to issue checkpoints if the only
> > > activity si
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-06 13:11:40 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 6 April 2016 at 10:09, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > On 2016-04-06 10:04:42 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > The issue there is that we continue to issue checkpoints if the only
>> > activity s
On 2016-04-06 13:11:40 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 6 April 2016 at 10:09, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2016-04-06 10:04:42 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > The issue there is that we continue to issue checkpoints if the only
> > activity since the last checkpoint was emitting a standby
> > snapshot
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > We can, if you wish, revert this patch. If we do, we will have nothing,
>> > since I object to the other patch(es).
>>
>> I don't think you have an absolute veto over other patches
>
> Huh? My understanding is I have the same powers as other
On 6 April 2016 at 10:09, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-06 10:04:42 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 6 April 2016 at 09:45, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > On 2016-04-06 09:18:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > Rather than take that option, I went to the trouble of writing a
> patch
> > > t
On 6 April 2016 at 12:24, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> FWIW, I vote also for reverting this patch. This has been committed
> >> without any real discussions..
> >
> > Michael, its a shame to hear you say that, so let me give full context.
> >
> > T
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> FWIW, I vote also for reverting this patch. This has been committed
>> without any real discussions..
>
> Michael, its a shame to hear you say that, so let me give full context.
>
> The patches under review in the CF are too invasive and not wo
On 2016-04-06 10:04:42 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 6 April 2016 at 09:45, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2016-04-06 09:18:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > Rather than take that option, I went to the trouble of writing a patch
> > that
> > > does the same thing but simpler, less invasive and m
On 6 April 2016 at 09:45, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-06 09:18:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Rather than take that option, I went to the trouble of writing a patch
> that
> > does the same thing but simpler, less invasive and more maintainable.
> > Primarily, I did that for you, to avoid
On 2016-04-06 09:18:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Rather than take that option, I went to the trouble of writing a patch that
> does the same thing but simpler, less invasive and more maintainable.
> Primarily, I did that for you, to avoid you having wasted your time and to
> allow you to backpatc
On 5 April 2016 at 01:18, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2016-04-04 08:44:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> That patch does exactly the same thing as the patch you prefer, just
> >> does it differently;
> >
> > No, it doesn't; as explained ab
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-04 08:44:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> That patch does exactly the same thing as the patch you prefer, just
>> does it differently;
>
> No, it doesn't; as explained above.
FWIW, I vote also for reverting this patch. This has been
On 2016-04-04 08:44:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 4 April 2016 at 08:22, Andres Freund wrote:
> > No, because in the alternative proposal we determine that the system
> > indeed has been idle since the last time a WAL record was logged.
> Why would that change anything? If something aborts wi
On 4 April 2016 at 08:22, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-04 08:08:32 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > For that matter, it's also important for hot standby; to deal with
> > > FATALed transactions which didn't write an abort record. It's kinda
> > > important to call StandbyReleaseOldLocks for tho
On 2016-04-04 08:08:32 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> For that matter, it's also important for hot standby; to deal with
> > FATALed transactions which didn't write an abort record. It's kinda
> > important to call StandbyReleaseOldLocks for those. And if a standby is
> > in STANDBY_SNAPSHOT_READY it
On 4 April 2016 at 07:49, Andres Freund wrote:
> > It doesn't?
>
Nope, clearly in the code 2 lines above.
For that matter, it's also important for hot standby; to deal with
> FATALed transactions which didn't write an abort record. It's kinda
> important to call StandbyReleaseOldLocks for thos
On 2016-04-04 08:42:02 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-04 07:31:46 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 4 April 2016 at 07:24, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > On 2016-04-04 06:19:04 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server
> > > >
> > > > If archive_
On 2016-04-04 07:31:46 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 4 April 2016 at 07:24, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2016-04-04 06:19:04 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server
> > >
> > > If archive_timeout > 0 we should avoid logging XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS if
> > idl
On 4 April 2016 at 07:24, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-04 06:19:04 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server
> >
> > If archive_timeout > 0 we should avoid logging XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS if
> idle.
> >
> > Bug 13685 reported by Laurence Rowe, investigated in
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-04 06:19:04 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server
>>
>> If archive_timeout > 0 we should avoid logging XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS if idle.
>>
>> Bug 13685 reported by Laurence Rowe, investigated in d
On 2016-04-04 06:19:04 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server
>
> If archive_timeout > 0 we should avoid logging XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS if idle.
>
> Bug 13685 reported by Laurence Rowe, investigated in detail by Michael
> Paquier,
> though this is not his propo
Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server
If archive_timeout > 0 we should avoid logging XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS if idle.
Bug 13685 reported by Laurence Rowe, investigated in detail by Michael Paquier,
though this is not his proposed fix.
20151016203031.3019.72...@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Simp
25 matches
Mail list logo
