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

Re: time-delayed standbys

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2011-07-01 00:24:30
Subject: Re: time-delayed standbys
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-06-30 23:25:00
Subject: Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks, v4

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