On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 18:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I didn't read this thread earlier, but now that I have, it seems to be
> making a mountain out of a molehill.
We've discussed a complex issue to pursue other nascent bugs. It's
confused all of us at some point, but seems we're thru that now.
Why do you think the issue on this thread has become a mountain? I don't
see anything other than a docs improvement coming out of it. (The last
thread on pg_standby *was* a mountain IMHO, but that has nothing to do
with this, other than the usual suspects being involved).
> It is entirely false that
> you've got to keep the history files on the live server.
There was a similar suggestion that was already clearly dropped, after
I (still) think that keeping the history files that have been used to
build the current timeline would be an important documentary record for
DBAs, especially since we encourage people to add their own notes to
them. The safest place for them would be in the data directory. Keeping
them there would be a minor new feature, not any kind of bug fix.
> I've got no objection to clarifying the documentation's rather offhand
> statement about this,
> but let's clarify it correctly.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner||Date: 2009-05-16 15:23:39|
|Subject: Re: bytea vs. pg_dump|
|Previous:||From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira||Date: 2009-05-16 02:41:01|
|Subject: some more plural messages|
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2009-05-16 17:56:29|
|Subject: Re: Perl 5.10 vs. PG 8.4 on Win32|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-05-15 22:03:04|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #4796: Recovery followed by backup creates unrecoverable WAL-file |