On 03/11/2016 09:48 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
Thank you so much!
What I wanted deal with in thread is almost done. I'm going to more
test the feature for 9.6 releasing.
Nicely done!
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>>> Thanks. I adopted some of your suggested, rejected others, fixed a
>>> few minor things that I missed previously, and committed this. If you
>>> think any of the changes that I
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Thanks. I adopted some of your suggested, rejected others, fixed a
>> few minor things that I missed previously, and committed this. If you
>> think any of the changes that I rejected still have merit, please
>> resubmit those changes a
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> This 001 patch looks so little like what I was expecting that I
>>> decided to start over from scratch. The new version I w
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This 001 patch looks so little like what I was expecting that I
>> decided to start over from scratch. The new version I wrote is
>> attached here. I don't understand why your versio
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This 001 patch looks so little like what I was expecting that I
>> decided to start over from scratch. The new version I wrote is
>> attached here. I don't understand why your versio
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> This 001 patch looks so little like what I was expecting that I
> decided to start over from scratch. The new version I wrote is
> attached here. I don't understand why your version tinkers with the
> logic for setting the all-frozen bit; I t
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> After some further thought, I thought that it's better to add check
> logic for result of rewriting visibility map to upgrading logic rather
> than regression test in order to ensure that rewriting visibility map
> has been successfully don
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for reviewing!
> Attached updated patch.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote: Attached latest 2 patches.
>>> * 000 patch : Incorporated the review
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> * 001 patch : Incorporated the documentation suggestions and updated
> logic a little.
This 001 patch looks so little like what I was expecting that I
decided to start over from scratch. The new version I wrote is
attached here. I don't u
Thank you for reviewing!
Attached updated patch.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote: Attached latest 2 patches.
>> * 000 patch : Incorporated the review comments and made rewriting
>> logic more clearly.
>
> That's bette
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Masahiko Sawada
wrote: Attached latest 2 patches.
> * 000 patch : Incorporated the review comments and made rewriting
> logic more clearly.
That's better, thanks. But your comments don't survive pgindent.
After running pgindent, I get this:
+ /*
+
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>>> How about instead changing things so that we specifically reject
>>> indexes? And maybe some kind of a check that will reject anything
>>> that lacks a relfilnode? That seems like
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> How about instead changing things so that we specifically reject
>> indexes? And maybe some kind of a check that will reject anything
>> that lacks a relfilnode? That seems like it would be more on point.
>
> I agree, I don't have strong
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, after some further thought, I think we might actually be OK.
>> If a page goes from all-frozen to not-all-frozen while VACUUM is
>> running, any new XID added to the page must be newer than the
>> oldestXmin value computed by vacuum_set_
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I left out the relkind check from the final commit because, for one
> thing, the check you added isn't actually right: toast relations can
> also have a visibility map. And also, I'm sort of
Robert Haas writes:
> The patch makes some attempt to update the comment mechanically, but
> that's not nearly enough. That comment is explaining that you *can't*
> rely on the visibility map to tell you *for sure* that a page does not
> require vacuuming. For current uses, that's OK, because if
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached latest version optimisation patch.
> I'm still consider regarding pg_upgrade regression test code, so I
> will submit that patch later.
I just spent some time looking at this and I'm a bit worried about the
following (existing) co
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Regarding pg_visibility module, I'd like to share some bugs and
>> propose to add a relation type condition to each functions.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
>> Including it, I've attached remaining
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Regarding pg_visibility module, I'd like to share some bugs and
>> propose to add a relation type condition to each functions.
>
> OK, thanks.
I left out the relkind check from the fina
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Regarding pg_visibility module, I'd like to share some bugs and
> propose to add a relation type condition to each functions.
OK, thanks.
> Including it, I've attached remaining 2 patches; one is removing page
> conversion code from pg_up
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello, thank you for updating this tool.
>
> At Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:03:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
> in
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>> > Attached latest version optimisation patch.
>> > I'm still consi
Hello, thank you for updating this tool.
At Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:03:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote in
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > Attached latest version optimisation patch.
> > I'm still consider regarding pg_upgrade regression test code, so I
> > will submit t
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Here's an updated patch with an API that I think is much more
> reasonable to expose to users, and documentation! It assumes that the
> patch I posted a few hours ago to remove PD_ALL_FROZEN will be
> accepted; if that falls apart for some reas
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> I actually think end-users might well want to use it. Also, I created
>> it by hacking up pg_freespacemap, so it may make sense to have it in
>> the same place.
>> I would also be tempted to add an additional C functions that scan the
>> e
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached latest version optimisation patch.
> I'm still consider regarding pg_upgrade regression test code, so I
> will submit that patch later.
I was thinking more about this today and I think that we don't
actually need the PD_ALL_FROZEN
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Jim Nasby writes:
On 3/2/16 4:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I think you should commit this. The chances of anyone other
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jim Nasby writes:
>>> On 3/2/16 4:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I think you should commit this. The chances of anyone other than you
and Masahiko recalling that you developed this to
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby writes:
>> On 3/2/16 4:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>> I think you should commit this. The chances of anyone other than you
>>> and Masahiko recalling that you developed this tool in 3 years is
>>> essentially nil. I think that the cos
At Wed, 2 Mar 2016 17:57:27 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote
in <56d77de7.7080...@bluetreble.com>
> On 3/2/16 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Jim Nasby writes:
> >> On 3/2/16 4:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >>> I think you should commit this. The chances of anyone other than you
> >>> and Masahiko recallin
On 3/2/16 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
On 3/2/16 4:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I think you should commit this. The chances of anyone other than you
and Masahiko recalling that you developed this tool in 3 years is
essentially nil. I think that the cost of committing a developer
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 3/2/16 4:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I think you should commit this. The chances of anyone other than you
>> and Masahiko recalling that you developed this tool in 3 years is
>> essentially nil. I think that the cost of committing a developer-level
>> debugging tool lik
On 3/2/16 4:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I think you should commit this. The chances of anyone other than you
and Masahiko recalling that you developed this tool in 3 years is
essentially nil. I think that the cost of committing a developer-level
debugging tool like this is very low. Modules lik
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I removed the pgstat stuff. I'm not sure we want that stuff in that
> form; it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of what's in that view, and
> it wasn't reliable in my testing. I did however throw together a
> little contrib module for testing
Thank you for revising and commiting this.
At Tue, 1 Mar 2016 21:51:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote in
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > Attached updated 5 patches.
> > I would like to explain these patch shortly again here to make
> > reviewing more easier.
> >
> >
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached updated 5 patches.
> I would like to explain these patch shortly again here to make
> reviewing more easier.
>
> We can divided these patches into 2 purposes.
>
> 1. Freeze map
> 000_ patch adds additional frozen bit into visibilit
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 03:57:01PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 03:57:01PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:56:25PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> > >> > I agreed
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 03:57:01PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:56:25PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >> > I agreed on ripping out the converter plugin ability of pg_upgrade.
>
Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:56:25PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> > I agreed on ripping out the converter plugin ability of pg_upgrade.
> >> > Remember pg_upgrade was originally written by EnterpriseDB staff, a
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:56:25PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> > I agreed on ripping out the converter plugin ability of pg_upgrade.
>> > Remember pg_upgrade was originally written by EnterpriseDB staff, and I
>> > think they expected t
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:56:25PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I agreed on ripping out the converter plugin ability of pg_upgrade.
> > Remember pg_upgrade was originally written by EnterpriseDB staff, and I
> > think they expected their closed-source fork of Postgres might need a
> > custom p
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:39:15PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>> > I still agree with this plugin approach, but I felt it's still
>> > complicated a bit, and I'm concerned that patch size has been
>> > increased.
>> > Please give me feed
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:39:15PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > I still agree with this plugin approach, but I felt it's still
> > complicated a bit, and I'm concerned that patch size has been
> > increased.
> > Please give me feedbacks.
>
> Yeah, I feel the same. What make it worse, the pl
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for reviewing this patch.
> I've divided 000 patch into two patches, and attached latest 4 patches in
> total.
Thank you! I'll go through this again as soon as I have a free moment.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.en
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I've divided the main patch into two patches; add frozen bit patch and
> pg_upgrade support patch.
> 000 patch is almost same as previous code. (includes small fix)
> 001 patch provides rewriting visibility map as a pageConverter routine.
Thank you for reviewing this patch!
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Thu, 4 Feb 2016 02:32:29 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>> > Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> >> I think we have two options.
Hello,
At Thu, 4 Feb 2016 02:32:29 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> I think we have two options.
> >>
> >> 1. Change page layout(PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION) to 5. pg_upgrade detects
> >> it and then converts
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
>> I misunderstood. Sorry for noise.
>> I agree with adding conversion method as a pageConverter routine.
>
> \o/
>
>> This patch doesn't change page layout actually, but pageConverter
>> routine checks only the page
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> This patch has gotten its fair share of feedback in this fest. I moved
> it to the next commitfest. Please do keep working on it and reviewers
> that have additional comments are welcome.
Thanks!
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Kyotaro H
This patch has gotten its fair share of feedback in this fest. I moved
it to the next commitfest. Please do keep working on it and reviewers
that have additional comments are welcome.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA,
Hello,
At Tue, 2 Feb 2016 20:25:23 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> >> I misunderstood. Sorry for noise.
> >> I agree with adding conversion method as a pageConverter routine.
> >
> > \o/
> >
> >> This p
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
>> I misunderstood. Sorry for noise.
>> I agree with adding conversion method as a pageConverter routine.
>
> \o/
>
>> This patch doesn't change page layout actually, but pageConverter
>> routine checks only the page
Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I misunderstood. Sorry for noise.
> I agree with adding conversion method as a pageConverter routine.
\o/
> This patch doesn't change page layout actually, but pageConverter
> routine checks only the page layout.
> And we have to plugin named convertLayout_X_to_Y.
>
> I
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On 2/1/16 4:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>
>>> Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>>
Attached updated version patch.
Please review it.
>>>
>>>
>>> In pg_upgrade, the "page convert" func
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/1/16 4:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>>> Attached updated version patch.
>>> Please review it.
>>
>>
>> In pg_upgrade, the "page convert" functionality is there to abstract
>> rewrites of pages being copied; yo
On 2/1/16 4:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Masahiko Sawada wrote:
Attached updated version patch.
Please review it.
In pg_upgrade, the "page convert" functionality is there to abstract
rewrites of pages being copied; your patch is circumventing it and
AFAICS it makes the interface more complica
Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached updated version patch.
> Please review it.
In pg_upgrade, the "page convert" functionality is there to abstract
rewrites of pages being copied; your patch is circumventing it and
AFAICS it makes the interface more complicated for no good reason. I
think the real
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:16 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>>> wrote:
Hello,
At Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:09:43 -050
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> At Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:09:43 -0500, Robert Haas
>>> wrote in
>>>
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:17
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> At Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:09:43 -0500, Robert Haas
>> wrote in
>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
>>> > I am not really getting the mean
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 06:44:46AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> Thank you for having a look.
> >
> > I would not bother mentioning this detail in the pg_upgrade manual page:
> >
> > + Since the format of visibility map has been changed in version 9.6,
> > + pg_upgrade
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:09:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
> in
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>> > I am not really getting the meaning of this sentence. Shouldn't this
>> > be reworded something l
Hello,
At Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:09:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
in
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > I am not really getting the meaning of this sentence. Shouldn't this
> > be reworded something like:
> > "Freezing occurs on the whole table once all pages of this re
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-12-17 16:22:24 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > On 2015-12-17 15:56:35 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Simon Riggs
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> I am not really getting the meaning of this sentence. Shouldn't this
> be reworded something like:
> "Freezing occurs on the whole table once all pages of this relation require
> it."
That statement isn't remotely true, and I don't think
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> make check with pg_upgrade is failing for me:
>> Visibility map rewriting test failed
>> make: *** [check] Error 1
>
> make check with pg_upgrade is done successfully on my env
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:48:04PM +0530, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
On 2015-12-17 16:22:24 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-12-17 15:56:35 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> > For me, rewriting the visibility map is a new data loss bug waiting
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-12-17 15:56:35 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > For me, rewriting the visibility map is a new data loss bug waiting to
>> > happen. I am worried that the group is not taking se
On 2015-12-17 15:56:35 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > For me, rewriting the visibility map is a new data loss bug waiting to
> > happen. I am worried that the group is not taking seriously the potential
> > for catastrophe here.
>
> FWIW, I
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> For me, rewriting the visibility map is a new data loss bug waiting to
> happen. I am worried that the group is not taking seriously the potential
> for catastrophe here.
FWIW, I'm following this line and merging the vm file into a single
unit
On 9 December 2015 at 18:31, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:48:04PM +0530, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Janes
> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada <
> saw
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:48:04PM +0530, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>>> > w
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:48:04PM +0530, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, we need to consider to compute chec
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>>> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> You're right, it's not necessary.
>> Attached latest v29 patch which removes the mention in pg_upgrade
>> documentation.
>
> The changes looks to be correct but I haven't tested.
> And I have some additional random comments.
>
Hello,
> You're right, it's not necessary.
> Attached latest v29 patch which removes the mention in pg_upgrade
> documentation.
The changes looks to be correct but I haven't tested.
And I have some additional random comments.
visibilitymap.c:
In visibilitymap_set, the followint lines.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>>> wrote:
Yeah, we need to consider to compute checksum if enable
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, we need to consider to compute checksum if enabled.
>>> I've changed the patch, and attached.
>>> Please revie
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 07:05:21PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-11-30 12:58:43 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I would not bother mentioning this detail in the pg_upgrade manual page:
> >
> > + Since the format of visibility map has been changed in version 9.6,
> > + pg_upgrade create
On 2015-11-30 12:58:43 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I would not bother mentioning this detail in the pg_upgrade manual page:
>
> + Since the format of visibility map has been changed in version 9.6,
> + pg_upgrade creates and rewrite new
> '_vm'
> + file even if upgrading from 9.5 or befor
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:48:04PM +0530, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Yeah, we need to consider to compute checksum if enabled.
> >> I've changed the patch, and attached.
> >
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, we need to consider to compute checksum if enabled.
>> I've changed the patch, and attached.
>> Please review it.
>
> Thanks for the update. This now conflicts with the upd
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Yeah, we need to consider to compute checksum if enabled.
> I've changed the patch, and attached.
> Please review it.
Thanks for the update. This now conflicts with the updates doesn to
fix pg_upgrade out-of-space issue on Windows. I've
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for taking the time to review this patch!
>> The updated version patch is attached.
>
> I am skeptical about just copying the old page header to be two new
> page headers
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for taking the time to review this patch!
> The updated version patch is attached.
I am skeptical about just copying the old page header to be two new
page headers. I don't know what the implications for this will be on
pd_lsn.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
I get an error when running pg_upgrade from 9.4 to 9.6-this
>>>
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>>
>>> I get an error when running pg_upgrade from 9.4 to 9.6-this
>>>
>>> error while copying relation "mediawiki.archive"
>>> ("/
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>
>> I get an error when running pg_upgrade from 9.4 to 9.6-this
>>
>> error while copying relation "mediawiki.archive"
>> ("/tmp/data/base/16414/21043_vm" to
>> "/tmp/data_fm/base/16400/2104
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> I get an error when running pg_upgrade from 9.4 to 9.6-this
>
> error while copying relation "mediawiki.archive"
> ("/tmp/data/base/16414/21043_vm" to
> "/tmp/data_fm/base/16400/21043_vm"): No such file or directory
OK, so the problem seems
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Attached latest v24 patch.
> I've changed patch so that just adding frozen bit into visibility map.
> So the size of patch is almost half of previous one.
>
Should there be an Assert in visibilitymap_get_status (or elsewhere)
against th
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Andres Freund
>>> wrote:
On 2015-10-31 11:02:12 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 17 November 2015 at 15:43, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On 11/17/15 4:41 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Could someone post a TL;DR summary of what the current plan looks
>>> like? I can see there is a huge amount of discussion to trawl back
>>> thro
On 17 November 2015 at 15:43, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 11/17/15 4:41 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>> Could someone post a TL;DR summary of what the current plan looks
>> like? I can see there is a huge amount of discussion to trawl back
>> through. I can see it's something to do with the visibility map
On 11/17/15 4:41 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
Could someone post a TL;DR summary of what the current plan looks
like? I can see there is a huge amount of discussion to trawl back
through. I can see it's something to do with the visibility map. And
does it avoid freezing very large tables like the tit
On 17 November 2015 at 10:29, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Andres Freund
>>> wrote:
On 2015-10-31 11:02:12 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Robert Haas > wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Andres Freund > wrote:
>>> On 2015-10-31 11:02:12 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Simon Riggs >
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2015-10-31 11:02:12 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Simon Riggs
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On 1 October 2015 at 23:30, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> > >>
>> >
1 - 100 of 298 matches
Mail list logo
