| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: time-delayed standbys |
| Date: | 2011-07-01 00:15:11 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=+C3xP6M9TJZ6gBmQV8=97ZEQ_hg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Some actions aren't even transactional, such as DROP DATABASE, amongst
>
> Good point. We'd probably need to add a timestamp to the drop
> database record, as that's a case that people would likely want to
> defend against with this feature.
This means that recovery_target_* code would also need to deal with
DROP DATABASE case.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-07-01 00:24:30 | Re: time-delayed standbys |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-30 23:25:00 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks, v4 |