From: "Joshua D. Drake" on
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 19:02 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 10:17 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> You make the mistake of assuming that someone that can develop has no
> solution experience. That is exactly how I fund further development, so
> you are off base by a long way.

I never implied that. I implied that your perspective is currently
skewed. I stand by that implication.

Joshua D. Drake



--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.


--
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 Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:31 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:

> > This is about what happens in production, not your laptop. The required
> > behaviour in-production is to assume that the sysadmin has configured it
> > correctly and we wait for them to fix the problem.
>
> 90% of our user base does not have a sysadmin. Or, for that matter,
> even a professional DBA.

Your logic is terrible. If there is no sysadmin, who would be typing the
pg_stop_backup() ? Who would have misconfigured it in the first place?

If you have a concrete proposal, get off your soapbox and make one,
based upon the technical information you've received. There are clear
reasons why things are the way they are and those reasons will not be
ignored, 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: Josh Berkus on
Simon,

> If you have a concrete proposal, get off your soapbox and make one,
> based upon the technical information you've received. There are clear
> reasons why things are the way they are and those reasons will not be
> ignored, by me.

OK, can you go through the reasons why pg_stop_backup would not
complete? And why it's a problem to have it complete? I'll admit to
not understanding them; it seems to me that pg_stop_backup should just
immediately force a checkpoint and a log write, but you're obviously
trying to prevent something with the current behavior. What are you
trying to prevent?

--Josh Berkus


--
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: Josh Berkus on
On 2/24/10 11:55 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 19:02 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 10:17 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> You make the mistake of assuming that someone that can develop has no
>> solution experience. That is exactly how I fund further development, so
>> you are off base by a long way.
>
> I never implied that. I implied that your perspective is currently
> skewed. I stand by that implication.

Let's kill the ad-hominem attacks guys. Not productive. Thanks.

--Josh Berkus


--
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
Josh Berkus wrote:
> OK, can you go through the reasons why pg_stop_backup would not
> complete?

pg_stop_backup() doesn't complete until all the WAL segments needed to
restore from the backup are archived. If archive_command is failing,
that never happens.

> And why it's a problem to have it complete?

Because then you would conclude that the backup is finished and you have
all the data you need to restore safely in the archive. If
archive_command is failing, that's not happening.

--
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