On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 22:31, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>> + primary_xlp_magic = atoi(PQgetvalue(res, 0, 2));
>>
>> You wrongly get the third field (i.e., current xlog location) as the
>> WAL version.
>> You should call PQgetvalue(res, 0,
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> + primary_xlp_magic = atoi(PQgetvalue(res, 0, 2));
>
> You wrongly get the third field (i.e., current xlog location) as the
> WAL version.
> You should call PQgetvalue(res, 0, 3), instead.
>
>> errdetail("Expected 1 tuple with 3 fields,
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>> Yes. It might be useful to note it, and then ust make an override
>> flag. My pointm, though, was that doing it for walreceiver is more
>> important and a more logical first ste
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> Yes. It might be useful to note it, and then ust make an override
> flag. My pointm, though, was that doing it for walreceiver is more
> important and a more logical first step.
>
ok, patch attached.
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQ
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 16:38, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 01:03, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander writes:
>> So even if people don't believe in the
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 01:03, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Magnus Hagander writes:
> So even if people don't believe in the rationale behind the patch,
> would allowing it harm an
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 01:03, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander writes:
So even if people don't believe in the rationale behind the patch,
would allowing it harm anything at this point?
>>
>>> Adding it for the sake of upgrades
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander writes:
So even if people don't believe in the rationale behind the patch,
would allowing it harm anything at this point?
>>
>>> Adding it for the sake of upgrad
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>>> So even if people don't believe in the rationale behind the patch,
>>> would allowing it harm anything at this point?
>
>> Adding it for the sake of upgrades seems very far fetched.
>
>> Adding it for the sake of givin
Magnus Hagander writes:
>> So even if people don't believe in the rationale behind the patch,
>> would allowing it harm anything at this point?
> Adding it for the sake of upgrades seems very far fetched.
> Adding it for the sake of giving a better error message seems like a
> very good idea. Bu
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 22:42, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jaime Casanova writes:
>>> I want to propose the addition of a new field in IDENTIFY_SYSTEM:
>>> xlogversion, which will carry XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC from primary.
>>> The idea of sending that info is
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jaime Casanova writes:
>> I want to propose the addition of a new field in IDENTIFY_SYSTEM:
>> xlogversion, which will carry XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC from primary.
>> The idea of sending that info is to allow us to know if the xlog page
>> version of two d
Jaime Casanova writes:
> I want to propose the addition of a new field in IDENTIFY_SYSTEM:
> xlogversion, which will carry XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC from primary.
> The idea of sending that info is to allow us to know if the xlog page
> version of two different major versions are compatible or not.
> Curren
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> I can't see xlog replication working between major versions.
well, probably... but not many years ago we wouldn't see integrated
replication in postgresql... still, here we are...
it's a difficult problem to solve? surely. we can make it wo
Hi,
On Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:39:49 AM Jaime Casanova wrote:
> I want to propose the addition of a new field in IDENTIFY_SYSTEM:
> xlogversion, which will carry XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC from primary.
> The idea of sending that info is to allow us to know if the xlog page
> version of two different majo
Hi
I want to propose the addition of a new field in IDENTIFY_SYSTEM:
xlogversion, which will carry XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC from primary.
The idea of sending that info is to allow us to know if the xlog page
version of two different major versions are compatible or not.
Currently pg_upgrade requires the pr
16 matches
Mail list logo
