Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Jacky Leng" <lengjianquan(at)163(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled
Date: 2007-11-15 20:38:41
Message-ID: 23243.1195159121@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Here's an updated version of the patch. There was a bogus assertion in
> the previous one, comparing against mdsync_cycle_ctr instead of
> mdunlink_cycle_ctr.

Applied with minor corrections.

I'm not sure whether we should consider back-patching this.  Thoughts?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-11-15 20:49:27
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris
Previous:From: andrewDate: 2007-11-15 18:43:21
Subject: Re: Heads up: 8.3beta3 to be wrapped this evening

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alex VinokurDate: 2007-11-16 09:19:13
Subject: Re: hashlittle(), hashbig(), hashword() and endianness
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-11-15 11:23:44
Subject: Re: hashlittle(), hashbig(), hashword() and endianness

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group