* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2017-01-19 20:45:57 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > > On 2017-01-19 10:06:09 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > WAL replay does do more work, generally speaking (the WAL has to be
> > > > read, the che
On 2017-01-19 20:45:57 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > On 2017-01-19 10:06:09 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > WAL replay does do more work, generally speaking (the WAL has to be
> > > read, the checksum validated on it, and then the write has to go ou
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2017-01-19 10:06:09 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > WAL replay does do more work, generally speaking (the WAL has to be
> > read, the checksum validated on it, and then the write has to go out,
> > while the checkpointer just writes the page out from
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > We did make the WAL checksum routines a lot
> > faster with 9.6, as I recall, so perhaps there's been some change there
> > too.
>
> 9.5, commit 5028f22f with Abhijit's and Heikki's w
On 2017-01-19 10:06:09 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> WAL replay does do more work, generally speaking (the WAL has to be
> read, the checksum validated on it, and then the write has to go out,
> while the checkpointer just writes the page out from memory), but it's
> also dealing with less contenti
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> We did make the WAL checksum routines a lot
> faster with 9.6, as I recall, so perhaps there's been some change there
> too.
9.5, commit 5028f22f with Abhijit's and Heikki's work on CRC-32 computations.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hack
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 1/19/17 9:53 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Sure, but we're talking about replaying WAL vs. doing a checkpoint, not
> > about writing WAL vs. replaying WAL. Replaying WAL and doing a
> > checkpoint both require writing to lots of diff
On 1/18/17 3:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Anybody who has got a script that runs pg_ctl unattended mode likely
> now has to go update that script to add --no-wait.
The state of init scripts and other start scripts out there is such a
mess, it's hard to make general statements like this. Many start
Peter,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 1/18/17 3:12 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I don't understand what I'm missing when it comes to checkpoint_timeout
> > and the time required to recover from a crash. You aren't the first
> > person to question that associatio
On 1/19/17 9:53 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Sure, but we're talking about replaying WAL vs. doing a checkpoint, not
> about writing WAL vs. replaying WAL. Replaying WAL and doing a
> checkpoint both require writing to lots of different places across the
> filesystem, of course.
Yeah, but they are
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 1/18/17 3:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Anybody who has got a script that runs pg_ctl unattended mode likely
> > now has to go update that script to add --no-wait.
>
> The state of init scripts and other start scripts out there is s
On 1/18/17 3:12 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I don't understand what I'm missing when it comes to checkpoint_timeout
> and the time required to recover from a crash. You aren't the first
> person to question that association, but it seems pretty clear to me.
>
> When doing recovery, we have to repl
> The on-screen output isn't all that helpful for diagnosing what went
> wrong. You might learn more by looking at the regression.diffs files.
> Remember that errors tend to cascade, so the first one(s) in any
> particular test suite are the most important --- the rest might just
> be fallout.
>
>
Ryan Murphy writes:
> So I ran "make -i installcheck-world" and it ran to completion. This is on
> a freshly "git pull"ed postgres source tree. Certain tests failed, but
> most succeeded.
Those results look pretty broken :-(
> There was no "overall" indication of success or failure at
> the ve
>
> Jim Nasby said I shouldn't necessarily need to build the docs / the whole
> world in order to review patches. But the Review form needs a `make
> installworld-check`. Do I need to install the whole world in order to meet
> this requirement? Happy to do so if required, but in that case, I won
>
>
> Ryan try to run 'make install-world' then 'make -i installcheck-world', -i
> option will ignore the error and proceed. You can check if any other tests
> fails. This is a separate issue, unrelated to this patch. I do not think
> we should stop from changing the status because of this.
>
>
Bee
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> > On 1/18/17 8:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> I was actually thinking about it the other way- start out by changing
> >> them to both be 5m and then document next to checkpoint_tim
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 16:15 Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> > For non-cold standby configurations, pg_ctl is going to return just
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 1/18/17 8:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I was actually thinking about it the other way- start out by changing
>> them to both be 5m and then document next to checkpoint_timeout (and
>> max_wal_size, perhaps...) that if you go changing
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 16:15 Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > For non-cold standby configurations, pg_ctl is going to return just as
>> > soon as the database has finished crash recovery, whi
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 16:15 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > For non-cold standby configurations, pg_ctl is going to return just as
>
> > soon as the database has finished crash recovery, which in most cases
>
> > will probably be on the order of
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> For non-cold standby configurations, pg_ctl is going to return just as
> soon as the database has finished crash recovery, which in most cases
> will probably be on the order of a few seconds.
/me is poleaxed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> I think we've changed the defaults to make things better for an
> >> attended startup and worse for an unattended startup. But I thin
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > If I'm understanding your concern correctly, you're worried about the
>> > case of a cold standby where the database is only replaying
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > If I'm understanding your concern correctly, you're worried about the
> > case of a cold standby where the database is only replaying WAL but not
> > configured to come up as a hot sta
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> If I'm understanding your concern correctly, you're worried about the
> case of a cold standby where the database is only replaying WAL but not
> configured to come up as a hot standby and therefore PQping() won't ever
> succeed?
I think we'
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 1/18/17 8:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I was actually thinking about it the other way- start out by changing
> > them to both be 5m and then document next to checkpoint_timeout (and
> > max_wal_size, perhaps...) that if you go cha
On 1/18/17 8:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I was actually thinking about it the other way- start out by changing
> them to both be 5m and then document next to checkpoint_timeout (and
> max_wal_size, perhaps...) that if you go changing those parameters (eg:
> bumping up checkpoint_timeout to 30 min
Michael,
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> Perhaps we need a way for pg_ctl to realize a cold-standby case and
> >> throw an error or warning if --wait i
Michael,
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Perhaps we need a way for pg_ctl to realize a cold-standby case and
> > throw an error or warning if --wait is specified then, but that hardly
> > seems like the common use-ca
On 1/17/17 8:35 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, it seems to me that we are likely looking for a wait mode saying
> to exit pg_ctl once Postgres is happily rejecting connections, because
> that means that it is up and that it is sorting out something first
> before accepting them. This would basi
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Perhaps we need a way for pg_ctl to realize a cold-standby case and
>> throw an error or warning if --wait is specified then, but that hardly
>> seems like the common use-case. It
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Perhaps we need a way for pg_ctl to realize a cold-standby case and
> throw an error or warning if --wait is specified then, but that hardly
> seems like the common use-case. It also wouldn't make any sense to have
> anything in the init sys
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> But what if we're restarting after, say, rebooting? Then there's
> >> nobody to see the progress messages, perhaps. The system just seems
> >> to take an eternity to return to the usual runl
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> But what if we're restarting after, say, rebooting? Then there's
>> nobody to see the progress messages, perhaps. The system just seems
>> to take an eternity to return to the usual runlevel.
>
> Not unlike an fsck.
Right. That's why peo
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> > On 1/15/17 11:40 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> This change may confuse the users who run "pg_ctl start" to perform a crash
> >> recovery, archive recovery and standby server (with hot_stand
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 1/15/17 11:40 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> This change may confuse the users who run "pg_ctl start" to perform a crash
>> recovery, archive recovery and standby server (with hot_standby=off) because
>> "pg_ctl start" would not return so l
On 1/15/17 11:40 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> This change may confuse the users who run "pg_ctl start" to perform a crash
> recovery, archive recovery and standby server (with hot_standby=off) because
> "pg_ctl start" would not return so long time.
Well, this change was made because the previous behav
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 1/11/17 11:20 AM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
>> Thanks for the review Beena, I'm glad the patch is ready to go!
>
> committed, thanks
Sorry for speaking up late.
This change may confuse the users who run "pg_ctl start" to perform a crash
rec
On 1/11/17 11:20 AM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
> Thanks for the review Beena, I'm glad the patch is ready to go!
committed, thanks
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Thanks for the review Beena, I'm glad the patch is ready to go!
I think because of my environment/setup, I get errors when I try "make
install-world", but I'm at work now, when I have time I will go back and
try again and figure out what is wrong. I'll let you guys know if I have
any questions.
Hello,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 t 6:06 PM, Beena Emerson
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Ryan Murphy
> wrote:
>
>> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
>> make installcheck-world: tested, failed
>> Implements feature: tested, passed
>> Spec c
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> make installcheck-world: tested, failed
> Implements feature: tested, passed
> Spec compliant: tested, passed
> Documentation:tested, passe
On 1/7/17 11:14 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
So I realized that I've never actually done `make world` before, and
when I try that I get a funny error:
make -C doc all
make -C src all
make -C sgml all
...
***
ERROR: `osx' is missing on your system.
...
Do you have any idea what that means? I googl
On 1/6/17 12:24 AM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
I don't actually believe this to indicate a problem though - I think perhaps there's a
problem with this test, or with how I am running it. The only diff was that when it
(correctly) complained of a nonexistent database, it referred to my username that I
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, failed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
(Though I could not check "make installcheck-world" as passed
46 matches
Mail list logo