On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> This makes me think that it's safer to just remove replication slot files
>> at the beginning of the recovery when both backup_label and recovery.conf
>> exist.
>
> Well, we could do that,
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> This makes me think that it's safer to just remove replication slot files
> at the beginning of the recovery when both backup_label and recovery.conf
> exist.
Well, we could do that, but that would preempt anyone who *does* want
to keep those
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Not sure if this is exactly the right way to do it, but I agree that
>>> something along those lines is a good idea. I also t
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Not sure if this is exactly the right way to do it, but I agree that
>>> something along those lines is a good idea. I also t
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Not sure if this is exactly the right way to do it, but I agree that
>> something along those lines is a good idea. I also think, maybe even
>> importantly, that we should probably docu
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Not sure if this is exactly the right way to do it, but I agree that
> something along those lines is a good idea. I also think, maybe even
> importantly, that we should probably document that people using
> file-copy based hot backups should s
Em segunda-feira, 7 de abril de 2014, Robert Haas
escreveu:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Michael Paquier
> > > wrote:
> >> For 9.4, clearly yes, this would change the semantic of recovery and
> >> this is not something wise to do
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> For 9.4, clearly yes, this would change the semantic of recovery and
>> this is not something wise to do at the end of a development cycle.
>> For 9.5 though, this is a different s
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> For 9.4, clearly yes, this would change the semantic of recovery and
> this is not something wise to do at the end of a development cycle.
> For 9.5 though, this is a different story. It clearly depends on if
> this is though as useful enoug
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I imagine
>> that if we want to guarantee the correctness of a replication slot we
>> would need to fetch from archives the necessary WAL files needed for
>> it when a node is in recovery, which is not something that this patch
>> does...
>
>
On 2014-04-04 21:42:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > The new master won't necessarily have all the neccessary WAL available, no?
> No, they won't have it, and things begin to get bad once a base backup
> includes a slot that has a non-nu
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> The new master won't necessarily have all the neccessary WAL available, no?
No, they won't have it, and things begin to get bad once a base backup
includes a slot that has a non-null value of restart_lsn. I imagine
that if we want to guarante
On 2014-04-02 20:59:03 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2014-04-02 09:59:28 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Andres Freund
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 2014-04-01 16:45:46 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> >>
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-04-02 09:59:28 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > On 2014-04-01 16:45:46 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Michael Paquier
>> >> wrote:
>>
On 2014-04-02 09:59:28 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2014-04-01 16:45:46 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Michael Paquier
> >> wrote:
> >> > As of now, pg_basebackup creates an empty repository for pg_
--On 1. April 2014 11:26:08 -0400 Robert Haas wrote:
As a general comment, I think that replication slots, while a great
feature, have more than the usual potential for self-inflicted injury.
A replication slot prevents the global xmin from advancing (so your
tables will bloat) and WAL from
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-04-01 16:45:46 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>> > As of now, pg_basebackup creates an empty repository for pg_replslot/
>> > in a base backup, forcing the user to recreate s
On 04/01/2014 05:24 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As of now, pg_basebackup creates an empty repository for pg_replslot/
> in a base backup, forcing the user to recreate slots on other nodes of
> the cluster with pg_create_*_replication_slot, or copy pg_replslot
> from another node. This
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>>
>> As of now, pg_basebackup creates an empty repository for pg_replslot/
>> in a base backup, forcing the user to recreate slots on other nodes of
>> the cluster with pg_create_*_
On 2014-04-01 16:45:46 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As of now, pg_basebackup creates an empty repository for pg_replslot/
> > in a base backup, forcing the user to recreate slots on other nodes of
> > the cluster wit
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As of now, pg_basebackup creates an empty repository for pg_replslot/
> in a base backup, forcing the user to recreate slots on other nodes of
> the cluster with pg_create_*_replication_slot, or copy pg_replslot
> from another no
Hi all,
As of now, pg_basebackup creates an empty repository for pg_replslot/
in a base backup, forcing the user to recreate slots on other nodes of
the cluster with pg_create_*_replication_slot, or copy pg_replslot
from another node. This is not really user-friendly especially after a
failover wh
22 matches
Mail list logo
