On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
The patch adds the document about the relationship between a restartpoint
and checkpoint_segments parameter.
Thanks, committed with minor editorialization
Thanks.
There will always be at
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for reminding me. I attached the updated patch.
This patch left uncommitted for half a month. No one is interested in
the patch?
The patch adds the document about the relationship between a restartpoint
and
On 16/07/10 11:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for reminding me. I attached the updated patch.
This patch left uncommitted for half a month. No one is interested in
the patch?
Sorry for the lack of interest ;-)
The
Did these changes ever get into the docs? I don't think so.
---
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
--- 1902,1908
? ? ? ? ?for
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Did these changes ever get into the docs? I don't think so.
Thanks for reminding me. I attached the updated patch.
That last sentence is a bit unclear. How about:
A restartpoint is triggered if at least one
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Ok, committed with some cosmetic changes.
Thanks!
BTW, should there be doc changes for this? I didn't find anything explaining
how restartpoints are triggered, we should add a paragraph somewhere.
On 10/06/10 09:14, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
BTW, should there be doc changes for this? I didn't find anything explaining
how restartpoints are triggered, we should add a paragraph somewhere.
+1
What
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
--- 1902,1908
for standby purposes, and the number of old WAL segments
available
for standbys is determined based only on the location of the
previous
checkpoint and
On 09/06/10 05:26, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 02/06/10 06:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Fujii
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 02/06/10 06:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com
wrote:
4) Change
On 02/06/10 06:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
4) Change it so that checkpoint_segments takes effect in standby mode,
but not during recovery otherwise
I revised the patch to achieve 4). This will enable checkpoint_segments
to
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 02/06/10 06:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com
wrote:
4) Change it so that checkpoint_segments takes effect in standby mode,
but not during
On 31/05/10 18:14, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
The central question is whether checkpoint_segments should trigger
restartpoints or not. When PITR and restartpoints were introduced, the
answer was no, on the grounds that when you're doing
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
4) Change it so that checkpoint_segments takes effect in standby mode,
but not during recovery otherwise
I revised the patch to achieve 4). This will enable checkpoint_segments
to trigger a restartpoint like
On 30/05/10 06:04, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess this happens because the frequency of checkpoint on the standby is
too lower than that on the
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
The central question is whether checkpoint_segments should trigger
restartpoints or not. When PITR and restartpoints were introduced, the
answer was no, on the grounds that when you're doing recovery
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
The central question is whether checkpoint_segments should trigger
restartpoints or not. When PITR and restartpoints were introduced, the
answer was no, on the grounds that when you're doing recovery you're
presumably replaying
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess this happens because the frequency of checkpoint on the standby is
too lower than that on the master. In the master, checkpoint occurs
With the parameter checkpoint_segment and wal_keep_segments the max. number of
wal segments are set. If now the max number is reached,
(1) the segments are deleted/recycled
or (2) if the time set by the checkpoint_timeout is over, a checkpoint is set
and if possible a deletion/recycling is
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Sander, Ingo (NSN - DE/Munich)
ingo.san...@nsn.com wrote:
With the parameter checkpoint_segment and wal_keep_segments the max. number
of wal segments are set. If now the max number is reached,
(1) the segments are deleted/recycled
or (2) if the time set by
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Sander, Ingo (NSN - DE/Munich)
ingo.san...@nsn.com wrote:
With the parameter checkpoint_segment and wal_keep_segments the max. number
of wal segments are set. If now the max number is
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess this happens because the frequency of checkpoint on the standby is
too lower than that on the master. In the master, checkpoint occurs for every
consumption of three segments because of checkpoint_segments = 3.
Message-
From: ext Fujii Masao [mailto:masao.fu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 4:10 PM
To: Sander, Ingo (NSN - DE/Munich)
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Streaming Replication: Checkpoint_segment and
wal_keep_segments on standby
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:13 PM
23 matches
Mail list logo
