On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 20:27 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I'd appreciate it if you could review the relation-specific conflict
patch, 'cos it's still important.
One fundamental gripe I have about that approach is that it's hard to
predict when you will be saved by the cache and when
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:01 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Putting it back takes time and
given enough of that rare cloth, it will eventually be put back.
Looks like I'll have time to add the starts-at-shutdown-checkpoint item
back in after all.
Great! Thank you, much
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:01 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Putting it back takes time and
given enough of that rare cloth, it will eventually be put back.
Looks like I'll have time to add the starts-at-shutdown-checkpoint item
back in after all.
I'd appreciate it if you could review the
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:52 +, Greg Stark wrote:
Can you explain what it does in
more detail so we can understand why it's necessary for a sensible set
of features?
I've slimmed down the patch to make it clearer what it does, having
committed some refactoring.
Problem: Currently when we
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 08:26 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Conflict resolution improvements are important to include in this
release, as discussed many times. Proposal given here
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01175.php
presents a viable
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
That was not the feedback I have received. Nobody has commented on that
to me, though many have commented on the need for the current patch. As
mentioned, I went to the trouble of running a meeting to gain additional
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 09:20 +0100, Guillaume Smet wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
That was not the feedback I have received. Nobody has commented on that
to me, though many have commented on the need for the current patch. As
mentioned, I
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 08:26 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Conflict resolution improvements are important to include in this
release, as discussed many times. Proposal given here
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01175.php
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
So what was the clear result?
I have spoken clearly enough. You were welcome to attend the Hot Standby
User Group. The fact that you did not expresses your own priorities
quite well, ISTM. Your protestations to know more about the
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Conflict resolution improvements are important to include in this
release, as discussed many times. Proposal given here
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01175.php
presents a viable design to improve this.
Following patch is a
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
So what was the clear result?
I have spoken clearly enough. You were welcome to attend the Hot Standby
User Group. The fact that you did not expresses your own priorities
quite well, ISTM. Your protestations to
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:10 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
yeah and we keep finding major bugs nearly daily
Facts, please?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
2010/1/29 Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
So what was the clear result?
I have spoken clearly enough. You were welcome to attend the Hot Standby
User Group. The fact that you did not expresses
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:12 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
There are many features we should add. I will add them in priority order
until forced to stop.
we are past the point of adding new features for 9.0 imho
So presumably we cannot add the new feature to start hot standby at
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:10 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
yeah and we keep finding major bugs nearly daily
Facts, please?
5 seconds of time spent on archives.postgresql.org show at least the
following SR/HS related bugs in the last 7 days or so:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:12 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
There are many features we should add. I will add them in priority order
until forced to stop.
we are past the point of adding new features for 9.0 imho
So presumably we cannot add the new feature to start hot
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:20 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:10 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
yeah and we keep finding major bugs nearly daily
Facts, please?
5 seconds of time spent on archives.postgresql.org show at least the
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
So what was the clear result?
I have spoken clearly enough. You were welcome to attend the Hot Standby
User Group. The fact that you did not expresses your
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 07:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
So what was the clear result?
I have spoken clearly enough. You were welcome to attend the Hot
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I even *fixed* that already, but you decided to take it out before
committing. I then added it to the list of must-fix items in the TODO
list, but you took that out too. I have no objection to doing things
in smaller steps, but this
Simon Riggs wrote:
I removed code that you mentioned was
buggy because I don't have time to fix it and it is not high enough up
the priority list. We have discussed all of these things before yet you
raise them again as if those things have never been said.
*sigh*. Yeah, we've been through
The fundamental disagreement here is over what qualifies as a
wishlist item, aka a feature or added functionality. And what
qualifies as a must-fix bug.
Priorities are context sensitive. If this were early in the cycle then
working on bigger impact features like conflict resolution code might
be
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 16:44 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I removed code that you mentioned was
buggy because I don't have time to fix it and it is not high enough up
the priority list. We have discussed all of these things before yet you
raise them again as if those
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:56 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
I think we should extend the time available to make sure we have a
sensible set of features for 9.0. The heat of this discussion tells me
that we are going to be lacking features that are must-have to someone,
whether or not they are in
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:52 +, Greg Stark wrote:
You said I think we should extend the time available to make sure we
have a sensible set of features for 9.0. Perhaps part of the problem
is that I couldn't understand what your patch did from the description
you posted and can't evaluate
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:20 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:10 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
yeah and we keep finding major bugs nearly daily
Facts, please?
5 seconds of time spent on archives.postgresql.org show at
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:56 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
I think we should extend the time available to make sure we have a
sensible set of features for 9.0. The heat of this discussion tells me
that we are going to
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Exactly. It would be nice to see 9.0 come out in 2010, and we're not
going to get there unless we start fixing the issues that are actually
release-blockers, rather than adding new features. Hot Standby was
committed with at least one
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Two months on, there is
zero sign of any activity on that front
I'm surprised that you call 14 commits in 28 days following a publicly
available priority list: zero sign of activity.
Further discussion seems pointless.
--
Simon Riggs
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Two months on, there is
zero sign of any activity on that front
I'm surprised that you call 14 commits in 28 days following a publicly
available priority list: zero
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 18:08 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Two months on, there is
zero sign of any activity on that front
I'm surprised that you call 14 commits in 28 days following a publicly
available priority list: zero sign of
All,
Is there a working list of HS must-fix items somewhere which people
agree on? Or are we still lacking consensus?
--Josh Berkus
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:41 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
All,
Is there a working list of HS must-fix items somewhere which people
agree on? Or are we still lacking consensus?
VACUUM FULL, I believe is one.
Joshua D. Drake
--Josh Berkus
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command
Conflict resolution improvements are important to include in this
release, as discussed many times. Proposal given here
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01175.php
presents a viable design to improve this.
Following patch is a complete working implementation of that design.
Simon Riggs wrote:
Conflict resolution improvements are important to include in this
release, as discussed many times. Proposal given here
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01175.php
presents a viable design to improve this.
Following patch is a complete working
35 matches
Mail list logo
