On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 17:50 +0200, Guillaume Smet wrote:
> I think it's a step forward, maybe not sufficient for you but I prefer
> the situation now than before. It's safer because of the principle of
> least surprise: I'm pretty sure a lot of people didn't even think that
> the last WAL file was systematically missing.
If I hadn't spoken out, I think you would have assumed you were safe and
so would everybody else. Time is saved only if you perform the step
manually - if time saving was your objective you should have been using
a script in the first place. If you're using a script, carry on using
it: nothing has changed, you still need to check.
> As Heikki stated it, if you have concrete proposals of how we can fix
> the other corner cases, we're all ears. Considering my current level
> of knowledge, that's all I can do by myself.
I'm not sure there is a solution even. Fixing a broken archive_command
is not something PostgreSQL can achieve, by definition.
It's good you submitted a patch, I have no problem there, BTW, but
applying a patch during beta, should either fix the problem or not be
applied at all.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Markus Wanner||Date: 2009-05-28 16:10:16|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-05-28 15:57:39|
|Subject: Re: Compiler warning cleanup - unitilized const variables, pointer type mismatch |