From: Simon Riggs on
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 18:35 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> > So I have introduced the new mode ("snapshot mode") to enter hot
> standby
> > anyway. That avoids us having to screw around with the loop logic
> for
> > redo. I don't see any need to support the case of where we have no
> WAL
> > source defined, yet we want Hot Standby but we also want to allow
> > somebody to drop a WAL file into pg_xlog at some future point. That
> has
> > no use case of value AFAICS and is too complex to add at this stage
> of
> > the release cycle.
>
> You don't need a new mode for that. Just do the same "are we
> consistent now?" check you do in the loop once before calling
> ReadRecord to fetch the record that follows the checkpoint pointer.
> Attached is a patch to show what I mean. We just need to let
> postmaster know that recovery has started a bit earlier, right after
> processing the checkpoint record, not delaying it until we've read the
> first record after it.

OK, that seems better. I'm happy with that instead.

Have you tested this? Is it ready to commit?

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Heikki Linnakangas on
Simon Riggs wrote:
> OK, that seems better. I'm happy with that instead.
>
> Have you tested this? Is it ready to commit?

Only very briefly. I think the code is ready, but please review and test
to see I didn't miss anything.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Simon Riggs on
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 19:02 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > OK, that seems better. I'm happy with that instead.
> >
> > Have you tested this? Is it ready to commit?
>
> Only very briefly. I think the code is ready, but please review and test
> to see I didn't miss anything.

I'm going to need you to commit this. I'm on holiday now until 14 April,
so its not going to get a retest before then otherwise; its not smart to
commit and then go on holiday, IIRC.

I've reviewed your changes and they look correct to me; the main chunk
of code is mine and that was tested by me.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Heikki Linnakangas on
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 19:02 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> OK, that seems better. I'm happy with that instead.
>>>
>>> Have you tested this? Is it ready to commit?
>> Only very briefly. I think the code is ready, but please review and test
>> to see I didn't miss anything.
>
> I'm going to need you to commit this. I'm on holiday now until 14 April,
> so its not going to get a retest before then otherwise; its not smart to
> commit and then go on holiday, IIRC.

:-)

> I've reviewed your changes and they look correct to me; the main chunk
> of code is mine and that was tested by me.

Ok, committed after fixing an obsoleted comment & other small
editorialization.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Simon Riggs on
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 17:18 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I've reviewed your changes and they look correct to me; the main chunk
> > of code is mine and that was tested by me.
>
> Ok, committed after fixing an obsoleted comment & other small
> editorialization.

Looks good, thanks.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers