Re: [HACKERS] WAL status update

2000-11-02 Thread Vadim Mikheev
> "Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think that at least 1 & 2 from WAL todo (checkpoints and port to > > machines without TAS) is required before beta. > > I'm not sure that you do need to add support for machines without TAS. > I pointed out a couple months ago that the non-TAS

Re: [HACKERS] WAL status update

2000-11-02 Thread Tom Lane
"Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think that at least 1 & 2 from WAL todo (checkpoints and port to > machines without TAS) is required before beta. I'm not sure that you do need to add support for machines without TAS. I pointed out a couple months ago that the non-TAS support code

RE: [HACKERS] WAL status update

2000-10-31 Thread Mikheev, Vadim
> > The first test did not go very well. I did a fresh compile, initdb, > > started the postmaster, ran 'make installcheck' (sequential > > regression tests), and sent a kill -QUIT to the postmaster during the > > numeric test. > > Then I restarted the postmaster and got a load of lines like >

RE: [HACKERS] WAL status update

2000-10-31 Thread Mikheev, Vadim
> The first test did not go very well. I did a fresh compile, initdb, > started the postmaster, ran 'make installcheck' (sequential regression > tests), and sent a kill -QUIT to the postmaster during the > numeric test. > Then I restarted the postmaster and got a load of lines like > > REDO @ 0

RE: [HACKERS] WAL status update

2000-10-31 Thread Mikheev, Vadim
> I believe that its just resting on Vadim again to give us the go ahead > ... which I believe its always been on his shoulders, no? :) > > Vadim? I think that at least 1 & 2 from WAL todo (checkpoints and port to machines without TAS) is required before beta. As well as more testing... Did an

Re: [HACKERS] WAL status update

2000-10-30 Thread The Hermit Hacker
I believe that its just resting on Vadim again to give us the go ahead ... which I believe its always been on his shoulders, no? :) Vadim? On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Vadim Mikheev writes: > > > WAL todo list looks like: > > So what's the latest on going beta? > > -- >

Re: [HACKERS] WAL status update

2000-10-30 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Vadim Mikheev writes: > WAL todo list looks like: So what's the latest on going beta? -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/peter-e/

Re: [HACKERS] WAL status update

2000-10-29 Thread Vadim Mikheev
> > First, as I've already mentioned in answer to Tom about DROP TABLE, undo > > logic will not be implemented in 7.1 -:( Doable for tables but for indices we > > would need either in compensation records or in xmin/cmin in index tuples. > > So, we'll still live with dust from aborted xactions in o

Re: [HACKERS] WAL status update

2000-10-29 Thread Hiroshi Inoue
Vadim Mikheev wrote: > Hi, All > > First, as I've already mentioned in answer to Tom about DROP TABLE, undo > logic > will not be implemented in 7.1 -:( Doable for tables but for indices we > would need > either in compensation records or in xmin/cmin in index tuples. So, we'll > still live > wi

[HACKERS] WAL status update

2000-10-29 Thread Vadim Mikheev
Hi, All First, as I've already mentioned in answer to Tom about DROP TABLE, undo logic will not be implemented in 7.1 -:( Doable for tables but for indices we would need either in compensation records or in xmin/cmin in index tuples. So, we'll still live with dust from aborted xactions in our tab