On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:50 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> * Separating bgwriter and checkpointer
>> Same for this one.
> Will commit by end of Monday
There are plenty of source comments (and probably documents) describing that
checkpoint is performed by bgwriter, but the patch that you posted
them. Are you going to include the change of them in the patch? Or commit
>> * pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp
>> This one is stuck because we don't have consensus on whether it should
>> be applied. I suggest pushing it forward to the next 'fest to give
>> Simon a reasonable amount of time to come up with a counterproposal.
>> (At some point, though, we should commit it if he doesn't provide one.)
>> * unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
>> This one also seems to be lacking consensus more than anything else.
>> What do we do about that?
> I'll re-read the thread in detail to see if I can break impasse.
That's very helpful. I'd like to hear what you think we should not change
for the backward compatibility, and what we can do. AFAIR you agreed
to rename recovery.conf, so I don't guess that you want 100% compatibility.
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-10-29 01:22:48|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2011-10-28 21:52:07|
|Subject: Re: So where are we on the open commitfest?|