Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:04 AM, David Gould wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 13:53:42 -0300 > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> * people with the wrong oldestMulti setting in pg_control (which would >> be due to a buggy pg_upgrade being used long ago) will be unable to >> start if they upgrade to 9.3.7 or 9.

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-09 Thread David Gould
On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 13:53:42 -0300 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > * people with the wrong oldestMulti setting in pg_control (which would > be due to a buggy pg_upgrade being used long ago) will be unable to > start if they upgrade to 9.3.7 or 9.3.8. A solution for them would be > to downgrade to 9.3.6.

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Josh Berkus wrote: > On 06/08/2015 12:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Well, reputation-wise we're already losing every time somebody's server > > crashes on 9.4.2 and finds it won't start, where it did start fine with > > 9.4.1. Maybe they simply wanted to change shared_buffers and the server > >

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Josh Berkus
On 06/08/2015 12:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Well, reputation-wise we're already losing every time somebody's server > crashes on 9.4.2 and finds it won't start, where it did start fine with > 9.4.1. Maybe they simply wanted to change shared_buffers and the server > won't start anymore. Some p

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 06/08/2015 12:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Well, reputation-wise we're already losing every time somebody's server crashes on 9.4.2 and finds it won't start, where it did start fine with 9.4.1. Maybe they simply wanted to change shared_buffers and the server won't start anymore. Some peopl

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 06/08/2015 12:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > >Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >>If we release on Friday that is the 12th, PgCon is starts the 16th and there > >>is a weekend in between. If there is an unknown regression or new bug that > >>is severe, are we going to

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 06/08/2015 12:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: If we release on Friday that is the 12th, PgCon is starts the 16th and there is a weekend in between. If there is an unknown regression or new bug that is severe, are we going to have the resources to resolve it? ISTM if t

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > If we release on Friday that is the 12th, PgCon is starts the 16th and there > is a weekend in between. If there is an unknown regression or new bug that > is severe, are we going to have the resources to resolve it? ISTM if that happens, we're no worse off than currently

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 06/08/2015 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund writes: On 2015-06-08 14:18:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: As I saw it, on Friday it was not clear whether we would be able to do a release this week. Now it's Monday, and we still have a rather long list of issues Well, these issues aren't

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2015-06-08 14:18:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> As I saw it, on Friday it was not clear whether we would be able to do a >> release this week. Now it's Monday, and we still have a rather long list >> of issues > Well, these issues aren't regressions, they're "just" gener

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > As I saw it, on Friday it was not clear whether we would be able to do a > release this week. Now it's Monday, and we still have a rather long list > of issues, and apparently Andres isn't all that happy even with the fixes > that have gone in, be

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-06-08 14:18:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > As I saw it, on Friday it was not clear whether we would be able to do a > release this week. Now it's Monday, and we still have a rather long list > of issues Well, these issues aren't regressions, they're "just" general problems we need to fix. An

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > It's not exactly going into a black hole, but there was some > communication between Tom and Andres on Friday that left Andres with > the impression that if he spent the weekend testing the new code for > problems and things went well, we'd be able to get a release this > wee

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-06-08 13:16:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > It's not exactly going into a black hole, but there was some > communication between Tom and Andres on Friday that left Andres with > the impression that if he spent the weekend testing the new code for > problems and things went well, we'd be able

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 02:01:52PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > OK, are these fixed in 9.4.2 or would the same failure happen in 9.4.3? > > > > The fixes are not yet in any released branch, hence the rush to get > > these out. > > OK, now I understand. :-O We have

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > OK, now I understand. :-O We have known failures that are not patched, > hence the desire for a release. > > I am a little concerned we are getting into a case where community > members dedicated to this issue are asking for a release, and i

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 02:01:52PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:39:24PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Yeah, I think if we needed this out in an emergency, we would do it, but > > >

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:39:24PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Yeah, I think if we needed this out in an emergency, we would do it, but > > > based on the volume of recent releases, it would be hard. Are we seein

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 01:53:42PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > * people with the wrong oldestMulti setting in pg_control (which would > be due to a buggy pg_upgrade being used long ago) will be unable to > start if they upgrade to 9.3.7 or 9.3.8. A solution for them would be > to downgrade to 9

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:39:24PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Yeah, I think if we needed this out in an emergency, we would do it, but > > based on the volume of recent releases, it would be hard. Are we seeing > > user reports of failure

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:40:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas writes: > > > So, when shall we do all of this releasing? It seems like we could do > > > stage-one of the multixact fixing this week, and then figure out how > > > to do the other stuff after PGCon.

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Yeah, I think if we needed this out in an emergency, we would do it, but > based on the volume of recent releases, it would be hard. Are we seeing > user reports of failures even on the newest released versions, or are > these preventive fix

Re: [CORE] [HACKERS] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule

2015-06-08 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:40:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > So, when shall we do all of this releasing? It seems like we could do > > stage-one of the multixact fixing this week, and then figure out how > > to do the other stuff after PGCon. Alternatively, we can let the