| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 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 09:29:13 |
| Message-ID: | CABUevExJSQ9iwt0LSyd3usAVavy7CNwA2Nku9DSRHEC1hWdXcQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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? Or add a signal
handler in the pg_basebackup client emitting a warning about it?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-08-10 09:39:59 | Re: some missing internationalization in pg_basebackup |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-08-10 09:21:55 | Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring from backup |