On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Committed with just a few changes to the documentation.
Thanks a lot!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> The one time this year top-posting seems appropriate...this patch seems
>> stalled waiting for some sort of response to the concerns Alvaro raised
>> here.
>
> Sorry for the delay. I didn't
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> The one time this year top-posting seems appropriate...this patch seems
> stalled waiting for some sort of response to the concerns Alvaro raised
> here.
Sorry for the delay. I didn't have the time.
> I gave this a look. It seems good, but I'm
The one time this year top-posting seems appropriate...this patch seems
stalled waiting for some sort of response to the concerns Alvaro raised
here.
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Fujii Masao's message of jue nov 25 10:47:12 -0300 2010:
The attached patch s/CopyXLog/CopyBoth/g and a
Excerpts from Fujii Masao's message of jue nov 25 10:47:12 -0300 2010:
> The attached patch s/CopyXLog/CopyBoth/g and adds the description
> about CopyBoth into the COPY section.
I gave this a look. It seems good, but I'm not sure about this bit:
+ case 'W': /* Start Copy Bo
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie nov 19 12:25:13 -0300 2010:
>>> Yeah. You're adding a new fundamental state to the protocol; it's not
>>> enough to bury that in the description of a message format. I don't
>>>
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie nov 19 12:25:13 -0300 2010:
>> Yeah. You're adding a new fundamental state to the protocol; it's not
>> enough to bury that in the description of a message format. I don't
>> think a whole lot of new verbiage is needed, but the COP
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie nov 19 12:25:13 -0300 2010:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> The patch is touching protocol.sgml as follows. Isn't this enough?
>
> > How about some updates to the "Message Flow" section, especially the
> >
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> The patch is touching protocol.sgml as follows. Isn't this enough?
> How about some updates to the "Message Flow" section, especially the
> section on "COPY Operations"?
Yeah. You're adding a new fundamental state to
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Just in a quick scan, I don't have any objection to v2 except that the
>>> protocol documentation is lacking.
>>
>> OK, I'll mark it Waiting on Author pending that issue.
>
> The patch i
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Just in a quick scan, I don't have any objection to v2 except that the
>> protocol documentation is lacking.
>
> OK, I'll mark it Waiting on Author pending that issue.
The patch is touching protocol.sgml as follows. Isn't this enough?
-
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Personally I think this demonstrates that piggybacking replication
>>> data transfer on the COPY protocol was a bad design to start with.
>>> It's probably time to spli
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Personally I think this demonstrates that piggybacking replication
>> data transfer on the COPY protocol was a bad design to start with.
>> It's probably time to split them apart.
> This appears to be the only obvious unr
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Personally I think this demonstrates that piggybacking replication
> data transfer on the COPY protocol was a bad design to start with.
> It's probably time to split them apart.
This appears to be the only obvious unresolved issue regarding this
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
>> It doesn't feel right to always accept PQputCopyData in COPY OUT mode,
>> though. IMHO there should be a new COPY IN+OUT mode.
>
> Yeah, I was going to make the same complaint. Breaking basic
> error-checking functi
Simon Riggs írta:
> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:22 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That said, there's a few small things that can be progressed regardless of
>>> the details of synchronous replication. There's the changes to
Hi,
Tom Lane írta:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
>
>> It doesn't feel right to always accept PQputCopyData in COPY OUT mode,
>> though. IMHO there should be a new COPY IN+OUT mode.
>>
>
> Yeah, I was going to make the same complaint. Breaking basic
> error-checking functionality in libpq
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> It doesn't feel right to always accept PQputCopyData in COPY OUT mode,
> though. IMHO there should be a new COPY IN+OUT mode.
>
> It should be pretty safe to add a CopyInOutResponse message to the protocol
> without a protocol version b
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:22 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> > That said, there's a few small things that can be progressed regardless of
> > the details of synchronous replication. There's the changes to trigger
> > failover with a signal,
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> It doesn't feel right to always accept PQputCopyData in COPY OUT mode,
> though. IMHO there should be a new COPY IN+OUT mode.
Yeah, I was going to make the same complaint. Breaking basic
error-checking functionality in libpq is not very acceptable.
> It should be p
On 17/09/10 12:22, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
That said, there's a few small things that can be progressed regardless of
the details of synchronous replication. There's the changes to trigger
failover with a signal, and it seems that we'll nee
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> That said, there's a few small things that can be progressed regardless of
> the details of synchronous replication. There's the changes to trigger
> failover with a signal, and it seems that we'll need some libpq changes to
> allow ackn
22 matches
Mail list logo
