On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:04:29AM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > I've clearly been working too hard and will retire for some rest (even
> > though that is not listed as a task on the Wiki).
>
> Someone add it!
Done! :)
Cheers,
David.
--
Da
On Dec 22, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I've clearly been working too hard and will retire for some rest (even
> though that is not listed as a task on the Wiki).
Someone add it!
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subs
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 19:53 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
> None of this was meant as an insult of any kind.
Then I apologise completely.
I've clearly been working too hard and will retire for some rest (even
though that is not listed as a task on the Wiki).
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuad
On 22.12.09 16:45 , Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 16:32 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
But you are of course free to work on whatever you feel like, and
probably need to satisfy your client's needs first.
Alluding to me as whimsical or mercenary isn't likely to change my
mind.
Simon,
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 19:30 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > You've been perfectly happy for *years* with the situation that recovery
> > would fail if max_prepared_transactions was not correctly. You're not
> > going to tell me you never noticed? Why is avoidance of obviou
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 18:42 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
>
> > Do you think this problem is must-fix for the final release ?
>
> We should be clear that this is a behaviour I told you about, not a
> shock discovery by yourself. There is no permanent freeze, just a wait,
> fr
Simon Riggs wrote:
> You've been perfectly happy for *years* with the situation that recovery
> would fail if max_prepared_transactions was not correctly. You're not
> going to tell me you never noticed? Why is avoidance of obvious
> misconfiguration of HS such a heavy priority when nothing else ev
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 18:40 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The issue I mentioned had nothing to do with starting from a shutdown
> checkpoint - it's still a problem if you keep the standby running
> through the restart cycle in the master) - but maybe you thought it was?
> Or was there somethi
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 18:17 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> By "add" I meant to write the feature, test and then support it
>>> afterwards, not to re-discuss editing the Wiki.
>> That's exactly what I meant too. I *did* write the feature, but you
>> r
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 18:17 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > By "add" I meant to write the feature, test and then support it
> > afterwards, not to re-discuss editing the Wiki.
>
> That's exactly what I meant too. I *did* write the feature, but you
> removed it before comm
Simon Riggs wrote:
> By "add" I meant to write the feature, test and then support it
> afterwards, not to re-discuss editing the Wiki.
That's exactly what I meant too. I *did* write the feature, but you
removed it before committing.
I can extract the removed parts from the git repository and send
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 15:38 +, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Florian Pflug wrote:
> >> Well, you either wait for master to come up again and restart, or you
> >> flip into normal mode and keep running queries from there. You aren't
> >> prevented from using the server, e
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 16:32 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
> But you are of course free to work on whatever you feel like, and
> probably need to satisfy your client's needs first.
Alluding to me as whimsical or mercenary isn't likely to change my mind.
IMHO this isn't one of the more important fea
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> Well, you either wait for master to come up again and restart, or you
>> flip into normal mode and keep running queries from there. You aren't
>> prevented from using the server, except by your own refusal to
>> failover.
>
> Very true. Howe
On 22.12.09 13:21 , Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 12:32 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
Image a reporting database where all transactions but a few daily
bulk imports are read-only. To spread the load, you do your bulk
loads on the master, but run the reporting queries against a
read-only
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 16:09 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > If someone does
> > add this, it will require careful thought about how to avoid introducing
> > further subtle ways to break HS, all of which will need testing and
> > re-testing to avoid regression.
>
> Well, I
Simon Riggs wrote:
> If someone does
> add this, it will require careful thought about how to avoid introducing
> further subtle ways to break HS, all of which will need testing and
> re-testing to avoid regression.
Well, I *did* add that, but you removed it...
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Enterpri
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 11:41 +, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > If you are saying being able to start Hot Standby from a shutdown
> > checkpoint is an important feature for you, then say so, and why.
>
> Can you explain the consequences of missing th
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 12:32 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
> On 22.12.09 9:34 , Simon Riggs wrote:
> > If you are saying being able to start Hot Standby from a shutdown
> > checkpoint is an important feature for you, then say so, and why.
>
> I think it's not so much an important feature but more the
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> If you are saying being able to start Hot Standby from a shutdown
> checkpoint is an important feature for you, then say so, and why.
Can you explain the consequences of missing this? It sounds to me like
if I lose my master and it happened to
On 22.12.09 9:34 , Simon Riggs wrote:
If you are saying being able to start Hot Standby from a shutdown
checkpoint is an important feature for you, then say so, and why.
I think it's not so much an important feature but more the removal of a
footgun.
Image a reporting database where all transa
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 19:11 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-12-19 at 20:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> I put them on the TODO list at
> >> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot_Standby_TODO, under the must-fix
> >> category.
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 18:42 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
> Do you think this problem is must-fix for the final release ?
We should be clear that this is a behaviour I told you about, not a
shock discovery by yourself. There is no permanent freeze, just a wait,
from which the Startup process wake
>The problem you mention here has been documented and very accessible for
>months and not a single person mentioned it up to now. What's more, the
>equivalent problem happens in the latest production version of Postgres
>- users can delay VACUUM endlessly in just the same way, yet I've not
>seen t
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-12-19 at 20:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I put them on the TODO list at
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot_Standby_TODO, under the must-fix
>> category.
>
> I notice you also re-arranged other items on there, specifically the
> notion that starting
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-12-19 at 20:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I put them on the TODO list at
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot_Standby_TODO, under the must-fix
>> category.
>
> I notice you also re-arranged other items on there, specifi
On Sat, 2009-12-19 at 23:22 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
> >Do people want more time to play with hot standby? Otherwise alpha3
> >should go out on Monday or Tuesday.
> >
>
> Well, I want to know whether the problem I refered to
> in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01641
On Sat, 2009-12-19 at 20:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I put them on the TODO list at
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot_Standby_TODO, under the must-fix
> category.
I notice you also re-arranged other items on there, specifically the
notion that starting from a shutdown checkpoint is
On Sat, 2009-12-19 at 14:20 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Do people want more time to play with hot standby? Otherwise alpha3
> should go out on Monday or Tuesday.
No thanks. There were no known bugs in the code I committed, excepting
the need to address VACUUM FULL. That will take longer tha
On Sat, 2009-12-19 at 20:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Well, that was the criteria I used to decide whether to commit or not.
> Not everyone agreed to begin with, and the reason I used that criteria
> was a selfish one: I didn't want to be forced to fix loose ends after
> the commitfest my
>Well, that was the criteria I used to decide whether to commit or not.
>Not everyone agreed to begin with, and the reason I used that criteria
>was a selfish one: I didn't want to be forced to fix loose ends after
>the commitfest myself. The big reason for that was that I didn't know
>how much ti
Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
>> Hiroyuki Yamada writes:
>>> Well, I want to know whether the problem I refered to
>>> in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01641.php
>>> is must-fix or not.
>>> This problem is a corollary of the deadlock problem. This is less
>>> catstrophic
>>> b
>Hiroyuki Yamada writes:
>> Well, I want to know whether the problem I refered to
>> in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01641.php
>> is must-fix or not.
>
>> This problem is a corollary of the deadlock problem. This is less catstrophic
>> but more likely to happen.
>
>> I
On Sat, 2009-12-19 at 18:12 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > Seems like something we should fix ASAP, but I do not see why it
> need
> > hold up an alpha release. Alpha releases are expected to have bugs,
> > and this one doesn't look like it would stop people from finding
> > other bugs.
>
Tom Lane wrote:
Hiroyuki Yamada writes:
Well, I want to know whether the problem I refered to
in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01641.php
is must-fix or not.
This problem is a corollary of the deadlock problem. This is less catstrophic
but more likely to happen.
Hiroyuki Yamada writes:
> Well, I want to know whether the problem I refered to
> in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01641.php
> is must-fix or not.
> This problem is a corollary of the deadlock problem. This is less catstrophic
> but more likely to happen.
> If you leav
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Do people want more time to play with hot standby? Otherwise alpha3
> should go out on Monday or Tuesday.
I think we should try to wrap it promptly. It's true that Hot Standby
almost certainly has bugs and/or annoying limitations, as on
>Do people want more time to play with hot standby? Otherwise alpha3
>should go out on Monday or Tuesday.
>
Well, I want to know whether the problem I refered to
in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01641.php
is must-fix or not.
This problem is a corollary of the deadlock
Do people want more time to play with hot standby? Otherwise alpha3
should go out on Monday or Tuesday.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
39 matches
Mail list logo
