Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. ISTM the real bottom line here is that we have only a weak grasp
> on how these features will end up being used; or for that matter what
> the common error scenarios will be. I think that for the time being
> we should err on the side of being permissive. We can tighten things
> up and add more nanny-ism in the warnings later on, when we have
> more field experience.
Ok, here's a proposed patch. Per discussion, it relaxes the checks in
pg_start/stop_backup() so that they can be used as long as wal_level >=
'archive', even if archiving is disabled.
If archiving is not enabled, it can't wait for the files to be archived.
Instead, it prints a notice:
NOTICE: WAL archiving is not enabled, you must ensure that all required
WAL segments are streamed or copied through other means to restore the
That is instead of the usual notice when archiving is enabled:
NOTICE: pg_stop_backup complete, all required WAL segments have been
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-04-29 09:55:08|
|Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues()
depend upon correct|
|Previous:||From: Teodor Sigaev||Date: 2010-04-29 09:33:46|
|Subject: Choosing between seqscan and bitmap scan|