On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 12:02 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 16:09 +0100, Jon Colverson wrote:
> > > 
> > >> This looks like a bug to me. Any thoughts?
> > > 
> 
> > No; nothing is touching the archive except for the archive_command being 
> > run by PostgreSQL.
> 
> Jon,
> 
> You're still troubled by what you've seen?
> 
> Can you start from the beginning again and describe exactly what set of
> circumstances you're in. I want to remove any bug or doubt that there is
> one lurking.

I've spent some time re-examining the code and I can't see a route for
the discussed problem to occur. All the main code paths do not exhibit
this problem in 8.2, so I'm not sure where to go from here.

If you can help further, please give me a shout.

-- 
  Simon Riggs             
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

• Re: Attempt to re-archive existing WAL logs afterrestoring from backup at 2007-06-01 11:02:34 from Simon Riggs

Responses

• Re: Attempt to re-archive existing WAL logs afterrestoringfrom backup at 2007-06-02 00:07:44 from Jon Colverson

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2007-06-01 20:05:47
	Subject: Re: Command tags in create/drop scripts
Previous:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2007-06-01 19:54:54
	Subject: Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: Concurrently updatinganupdatable view)

pgsql-admin by date

Next:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2007-06-01 20:07:46
	Subject: Re: Deletes hurt
Previous:	From: Dan Harris	Date: 2007-06-01 18:51:54
	Subject: Re: Function to offset current timestamp