| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Date: | 2018-07-18 13:06:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20180718130622.GI8565@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 06:42:10AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Andrew Dunstan
> <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Well, we'd be getting rid of it because of a danger of data loss which we
>> can't otherwise mitigate. Maybe it does need to be backpatched, even if we
>> haven't had complaints.
>
> What's wrong with the approach proposed in
> http://postgr.es/m/55AFC302.1060805@iki.fi ?
For back-branches that's very invasive so that seems risky to me
particularly seeing the low number of complaints on the matter.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2018-07-18 13:07:44 | Re: PG 10: could not generate random cancel key |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-07-18 13:01:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" test pending solution of its timing is (fwd) |