| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PiTR and other architectures.... |
| Date: | 2008-12-02 23:44:28 |
| Message-ID: | 1228261468.14591.97.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 10:15 +1100, Philip Warner wrote:
> wow...that's a little scary. Sounds like there is no trustworthy test I
> can run. Other than the case of collation differences, are there any
> other kinds of problems that would not be detected by even a postmaster
> restart?
>
I can't answer that question authoritatively. If the locales obey the
same rules, and pg_controldata has the same output for the relevant
values (as Heikki mentioned), I *think* it will work.
But, as Simon pointed out, is it really worth the risk? PITR is closer
to a physical process, and it's probably wise to just assume it's not
portable.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2008-12-03 00:02:50 | Re: PiTR and other architectures.... |
| Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2008-12-02 23:15:15 | Re: PiTR and other architectures.... |