Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Fujii Masao
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Alexander Björnhagen wrote: > I’m new here so maybe someone else already has this in the works ? No, as far as I know. > And so on ... any comments are welcome :) Basically I like this whole idea, but I'd like to know why do you think this functionality is requi

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Alexander Björnhagen
Hello and thank you for your feedback I appreciate it. Updated patch : sync-standalone-v2.patch I am sorry to be spamming the list but I just cleaned it up a little bit, wrote better comments and tried to move most of the logic into syncrep.c since that's where it belongs anyway and also fixed a

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 13:51, Alexander Björnhagen wrote: > Hello and thank you for your feedback I appreciate it. > > Updated patch : sync-standalone-v2.patch > > I am sorry to be spamming the list but I just cleaned it up a little > bit, wrote better comments and tried to move most of the logic

Re: [HACKERS] Review: Non-inheritable check constraints

2011-12-26 Thread Nikhil Sontakke
> > I don't think this is a given ... In fact, IMO if we're only two or > > three fixes away from having it all nice and consistent, I think > > reverting is not necessary. > > Sure. It's the "if" part of that sentence that I'm not too sure about. > > Any specific area of the code that you think

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Alexander Björnhagen
Interesting discussion! >>> Basically I like this whole idea, but I'd like to know why do you think >>> this functionality is required? >> How should a synchronous master handle the situation where all >> standbys have failed ? >> >> Well, I think this is one of those cases where you could argue

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Magnus Hagander writes: > If you don't care about the absolute guarantee of data, why not just > use async replication? It's still going to replicate the data over to > the client as quickly as it can - which in the end is the same level > of guarantee that you get with this switch set, isn't it?

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 15:59, Alexander Björnhagen wrote: Basically I like this whole idea, but I'd like to know why do you think this functionality is required? > >>> How should a synchronous master handle the situation where all >>> standbys have failed ? >>> >>> Well, I think this i

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Guillaume Lelarge
On Mon, 2011-12-26 at 16:23 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 15:59, Alexander Björnhagen > wrote: > Basically I like this whole idea, but I'd like to know why do you think > this functionality is required? > > > >>> How should a synchronous master handle the situa

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Alexander Björnhagen
Hmm, I suppose this conversation would lend itself better to a whiteboard or a maybe over a few beers instead of via e-mail ... > Basically I like this whole idea, but I'd like to know why do you think > this functionality is required? How should a synchronous master handle the si

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Alexander Björnhagen
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > On Mon, 2011-12-26 at 16:23 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 15:59, Alexander Björnhagen >> wrote: >> Basically I like this whole idea, but I'd like to know why do you think >> this functionality is req

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2011-12-26 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 18:01, Alexander Björnhagen wrote: > Hmm, > > I suppose this conversation would lend itself better to a whiteboard > or a maybe over a few beers instead of via e-mail  ... mmm. beer... :-) > Well, I think this is one of those cases where you could argue either >

[HACKERS] contrib/README

2011-12-26 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Apparently we forgot to update the README file in contrib/. I wonder if it's necessary to explain that within each directory you find one or more ".control" file that determines what can be run ... or maybe just mention the pg_extensions views? What about this? diff --git a/contrib/README b/con

Re: [HACKERS] Adding XSLT support to PostgreSQL core?

2011-12-26 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Volker Grabsch's message of mar dic 06 06:34:37 -0300 2011: > Dear PostgreSQL hackers, > > While all xpath_*() functions seem to have been successfully > collapsed into a generic xpath() function, and xml_is_well_formed() > has been moved into the type check for the XML type, I won

Re: [HACKERS] contrib/README

2011-12-26 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > Apparently we forgot to update the README file in contrib/. I wonder whether it's time to drop that file altogether ... it served a purpose back before we integrated contrib into the SGML docs, but now I'm not quite sure why we should bother with it.