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

Re: [HACKERS]odd output in restore mode

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Martin Zaun <Martin(dot)Zaun(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS]odd output in restore mode
Date: 2008-08-02 14:27:21
Message-ID: 48946EC9.1010000@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches

Simon Riggs wrote:
> Well, this is a strange conclusion, leaving me slightly bemused.
>
> The discussion between Andrew and I at PGcon concluded that we would
> * document which other tools to use
> * remove the delay
>
> Now we have rejected the patch which does that, but then re-requested
> the exact same thing again.
>
> The patch interprets "remove the delay" as "remove the delay in a way
> which will not screw up existing users of pg_standby when they upgrade".
> Doing that requires us to have a configurable delay, which defaults to
> the current behaviour, but that can be set to zero (the recommended
> way). Which is what the patch implements.
>
> Andrew, Heikki: ISTM its time to just make the changes yourselves. This
> is just going round and round to no benefit. This doesn't warrant such a
> long discussion and review process.
>   

You ought to know by now that the length and ferocity of the discussion 
bears no relation at all to the importance of the subject ;-)

Personally, I think it's reasonable to provide the delay as long as it's 
switchable, although I would have preferred zero to be the default. If 
we remove it altogether then we force bigger changes on people who are 
currently using Windows copy. But I can live with that since changing 
their archive_command is the better path by far anyway, either to use 
Gnu cp or the copy / rename trick.

cheers

andrew



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-08-02 15:24:01
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2008-08-02 14:07:28
Subject: Re: [WIP] patch - Collation at database level

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-08-02 15:24:01
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-08-02 10:07:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS]odd output in restore mode

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