From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring from backup |
Date: | 2011-08-10 10:44:41 |
Message-ID: | 4E426119.10707@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10.08.2011 12:29, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 18:07, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>> On 09.08.2011 18:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> How about making the new backup_label field optional? If absent, assume
>>>> current behavior.
>>
>>> That's how I actually did it in the patch. However, the problem wrt.
>>> requiring initdb is not the new field in backup_label, it's the new
>>> field in the control file.
>>
>> Yeah. I think it's too late to be fooling with pg_control for 9.1.
>> Just fix it in HEAD.
>
> Should we add a note to the documentation of pg_basebackup in 9.1
> telling people to take care about the failure case?
Something like "Note: if you abort the backup before it's finished, the
backup won't be valid" ? That seems pretty obvious to me, hardly worth
documenting.
> Or add a signal
> handler in the pg_basebackup client emitting a warning about it?
We don't have such a signal handler pg_dump either. I don't think we
should add it.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-08-10 10:53:44 | Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring from backup |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2011-08-10 10:19:13 | Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build |