On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 18:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> What's your point? Surely the applied patch is a *necessary* component
> of any attempt to try to ensure archiving is complete at shutdown.
> I agree that it doesn't cover every risk factor, and there are some
> risk factors that cannot be covered by Postgres itself. But isn't it
> a step in a desirable direction?
Well, in one way, yes. I certainly encourage Guillaume to submit more
patches and for everybody to review them, as has been done. I turned up
late to the party on this, I know.
Regrettably, the patch doesn't remove the problem it was supposed to
remove and I'm highlighting there is still risk of data loss. I suggest
that we don't change any docs, and carefully word or even avoid any
release note inclusion to avoid lulling people into stopping safety
The patch doesn't cause any problems though so we don't need to remove
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-05-29 18:35:59|
|Subject: Re: information_schema.columns changes needed for OLEDB |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-05-29 18:16:26|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] trouble with to_char('L') |