On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 21:51 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I believe Peter's question was rhetorical: what he meant to point out
> > is that the documentation needs to explain what is the reason for
> > having this switch, ie, in what cases would you use it or not use it?
> > Just saying what it does isn't really adequate docs.
> I once considered implementing this myself but found it infeasible for
> some reason I don't remember. Nevertheless I always thought that
> having an atomic restore ought to be a non-optional feature. Are there
> situations where one would not want to use it? (And if so, which one
> is the more normal case?)
You're thinking is good. I guess if restores never failed, I'd be
inclined to agree 100%, but I'm at about 80% right now.
I'd say: if the patch is accepted technically, lets debate this point
more widely on -hackers.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-12-19 02:21:56|
|Subject: Test, please ignore|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2005-12-18 21:32:09|
|Subject: Re: COPY LOCK for WAL bypass|