On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 15:31 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
/* followings are for client encoding only */
PG_SJIS,/* Shift JIS
(Winindows-932) */
while you have that file open: s/Winindows-932/Windows-932 maybe?
done
--
Sent
Hi,
On 2014-01-22 13:00:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Well, apparently, one is going to PANIC and reinitialize the system.
I presume that upon reinitialization we'll decide that the slot is
gone, and thus won't recreate it in shared memory.
Yea, and if it's half-gone we'll continue deletion.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I don't think shared buffers fsyncs are the apt comparison. It's more
something like UpdateControlFile(). Which PANICs.
I really don't get why you fight PANICs in general that much. There are
some nasty PANICs in
On 2014-01-23 11:50:57 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I don't think shared buffers fsyncs are the apt comparison. It's more
something like UpdateControlFile(). Which PANICs.
I really don't get why you fight PANICs in
On 2014-01-18 08:35:47 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I am not sure I understand that point. We can either update the
in-memory bit before performing the on-disk operations or
afterwards. Either way, there's a way to be inconsistent if the disk
operation fails somewhere inbetween (it might fail
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-01-18 08:35:47 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I am not sure I understand that point. We can either update the
in-memory bit before performing the on-disk operations or
afterwards. Either way, there's a way to be
On 2014-01-22 10:14:27 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-01-18 08:35:47 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I am not sure I understand that point. We can either update the
in-memory bit before performing the on-disk
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Yes, individual operations should be, but you cannot be sure whether a
rename()/unlink() will survive a crash until the directory is
fsync()ed. So, what is one going to do if the unlink suceeded, but the
fsync
On 01/18/2014 02:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Anybody who actually uses SHIFT_JIS as an operational encoding, rather
than as an input/output encoding, is into pain and suffering. Personally
I'd be quite happy to see it
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Anybody who actually uses SHIFT_JIS as an operational encoding, rather
than as an input/output encoding, is into pain and suffering. Personally
I'd be quite happy to see it supported as client_encoding, but forbidden
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Maybe it would be better to get rid of active/in_use and have
three states: REPLSLOT_CONNECTED, REPLSLOT_NOT_CONNECTED,
REPLSLOT_FREE. Or something like that.
Hm. Color me unenthusiastic. If you feel strongly I can
On 01/18/2014 09:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Anybody who actually uses SHIFT_JIS as an operational encoding, rather
than as an input/output encoding, is into pain and suffering. Personally
I'd be quite happy to see it
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Anybody who actually uses SHIFT_JIS as an operational encoding, rather
than as an input/output encoding, is into pain and suffering. Personally
I'd be quite happy to see it
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-01-15 13:28:25 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
- I think you should just regard ReplicationSlotCtlLock as protecting
the name and active flags of every slot. ReplicationSlotCreate()
would then not need to mess with
Hi,
On 2014-01-16 09:34:51 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
- ReplicationSlotAcquire probably needs to ignore slots that are not
active.
Not sure what you mean? If the slot isn't in_use we'll skip it in the loop.
active != in_use.
I suppose your point is that the slot can't be in_use if
On 01/16/2014 02:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
- If you address /* FIXME: apply sanity checking to slot name */, then
I think that also addresses /* XXX: do we want to use truncate
identifier instead? */. In other words, let's just error out if the
name is too long. I'm not sure what other sanity
This 0001 patch, to log running transactions more frequently, has been
pending for a long time now, and I haven't heard any objections, so
I've gone ahead and committed that part.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
Review of patch 0002:
- I think you should just regard ReplicationSlotCtlLock as protecting
the name and active flags of every slot. ReplicationSlotCreate()
would then not need to mess with the spinlocks at all, and
ReplicationSlotAcquire and ReplicationSlotDrop get a bit simpler too I
think.
Hi,
On 2014-01-15 13:28:25 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
- I think you should just regard ReplicationSlotCtlLock as protecting
the name and active flags of every slot. ReplicationSlotCreate()
would then not need to mess with the spinlocks at all, and
ReplicationSlotAcquire and
19 matches
Mail list logo
