On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 23:21 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Fujii,
Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing capabilities
Good
unless necessary.
That is not a caveat I will accept, a priori.
While Simon stated it a bit strongly
My intention was only to be clear about
Fujii,
Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing capabilities
Good
unless necessary.
That is not a caveat I will accept, a priori.
While Simon stated it a bit strongly, I think it's important that you
alert people if you think you have to remove existing features in order
to
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
While Simon stated it a bit strongly, I think it's important that you alert
people if you think you have to remove existing features in order to make
easy standby possible.
Now, I think that any existing capabilities
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Currently walmgr.py is doing everything from setting up replica to
getting up-to-last-second changes to slave's disk.
If walmgr.py and its cousins had good documentation there would possibly
be much greater acceptance of them.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 17:36 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
niranja...@nsn.com wrote:
Could you please let me
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 22:17 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need. If the above will remove all the
B.S. currently associated with actually doing PITR (rsync, scp, nfs,
pg_standby pick your poison) then I am all for it.
If you use walmgr.py, then all you need
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 12:21 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 22:17 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need. If the above will remove all the
B.S. currently associated with actually doing PITR (rsync, scp, nfs,
pg_standby pick your poison)
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:50 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing capabilities
Good
unless necessary.
That is not a caveat I will accept, a priori.
What
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:50 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing capabilities
Good
unless necessary.
That is not a caveat I
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:50 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing
capabilities
Good
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:02 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:50 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Again, I'm not planning to get rid of any existing capabilities
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I didn't think I had proposed any such thing, although maybe I'm just
not remembering. I'm pretty confused as to what the current thread is
all about.
Robert Haas wrote:
I think the more relevant question right now is whether the work Fujii
Masao is planning to do for 8.5 is reponsive to the following comment
from Heikki:
# IMHO, the synchronous replication isn't in such good shape, I'm
afraid. I've said
# this before, but I'm not happy with
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
I think the more relevant question right now is whether the work Fujii
Masao is planning to do for 8.5 is reponsive to the following comment
from Heikki:
# IMHO, the synchronous replication isn't in such
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
I think the more relevant question right now is whether the work Fujii
Masao is planning to do for 8.5 is reponsive to the following comment
from Heikki:
# IMHO, the synchronous
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
That is exactly what I am against. Note the words get rid of.
This prevents parallel data transfer, use of split mirrors and various
other techniques. It sounds neater, but it implies removal of useful
features.
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
That is exactly what I am against. Note the words get rid of.
This prevents parallel data transfer, use of split mirrors and various
other techniques. It
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 16:11 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
OK, so let's assume that we'll provide an extra facility that doesn't
take anything away but which provides for close to zero config setup for
the simple case. Frankly, that's what the vast majority of people want,
in my experience.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I believe so, see second bullet point in:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/3f0b79eb0902240751t13231593g17fbef70664d4...@mail.gmail.com
Cool.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 06:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
That is exactly what I am against. Note the words get rid of.
This prevents parallel data transfer, use of split mirrors and
K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) wrote:
Hi,
Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features
that are still to be developed in the respective patches?
I'am currently referring the wiki: Todo and Claim for NTT and
for HotStandby, i see that almost all issues are closed. Are
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
niranja...@nsn.com wrote:
Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are still
to be developed in the respective patches?
I'am currently referring the wiki: Todo and Claim for NTT and for
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
niranja...@nsn.com wrote:
Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are
still to be developed in the respective patches?
I'am currently
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
niranja...@nsn.com wrote:
Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are still
to be developed in the respective patches?
I'am
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 17:36 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
niranja...@nsn.com wrote:
Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are
still to be
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of users that
would be affected, or how to count them.
--
Simon
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of users that
would be affected, or how
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
I am against removing an existing capability that is important to
some users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Presumably we'll keep the capability to restore from a backup and restore
from WAL archive as well, when those are available. Keeping that capability
shouldn't add many lines of code.
Yes, I
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:25 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Right. I was made a bit nervous by Joshua's comments, but somewhat
reassured by his reference back to Heikki's comments. If we can make
common cases simple to implement, that's great, as long as we don't
lose functionality needed to
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:53 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
users. We shouldn't need
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
So far, everything has been couched in terms of remove the way it is now
and put in its place something better. Heikki and Josh have said that
or similar, as has Robert Haas on another thread, and Fujii-san
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:53 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
I am against removing an existing capability
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 18:48 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of users
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that in previous discussions of Streaming Replication,
Heikki put forward the proposition that the standby server should be
able to connect to the primary and stream not only newly-generated WAL
but
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I didn't think I had proposed any such thing, although maybe I'm just
not remembering. I'm pretty confused as to what the current thread is
all about.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg00978.php
I don't think
Bruce Momjian wrote:
K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) wrote:
Hi,
Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features
that are still to be developed in the respective patches?
I'am currently referring the wiki: Todo and Claim for NTT and
for HotStandby, i see that almost all issues
Hi,
Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are still
to be developed in the respective patches?
I'am currently referring the wiki: Todo and Claim for NTT and for HotStandby,
i see that almost all issues are closed. Are there any features / refactoring /
bugs
38 matches
Mail list logo
