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>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery |
Date: | 2008-10-02 23:07:55 |
Message-ID: | 48E5544B.5050103@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 18:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>
>>> Version 7
>>>
>> After reading this for awhile, I realized that there is a rather
>> fundamental problem with it: it switches into "consistent recovery"
>> mode as soon as it's read WAL beyond ControlFile->minRecoveryPoint.
>>
>
> Just seen this patch has been bounced into November CommitFest, even
> though the new patch fixes all of the concerns raised.
>
> I'm concerned that this is going to make the final Hot Standby patch
> fairly large, which will make it even harder to review, test and
> generally get accepted.
>
> What's the best way to make this easier for you/others to review?
>
>
The fact that it's been put on the November list doesn't mean it can't
be reviewed and committed before then.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-10-03 03:42:03 | parallel restore test results |
Previous Message | Decibel! | 2008-10-02 22:56:16 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-10-05 18:51:10 | Re: Subtransaction commits and Hot Standby |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-02 22:11:28 | Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery |