| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexey Kondratov <a(dot)kondratov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Liudmila Mantrova <l(dot)mantrova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, vladimirlesk(at)yandex-team(dot)ru, dsarafan(at)yandex-team(dot)ru |
| Subject: | Re: [Patch] pg_rewind: options to use restore_command from recovery.conf or command line |
| Date: | 2019-12-01 02:57:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20191201025728.GZ2355@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 03:08:22PM +0300, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
> As Alvaro correctly pointed in the nearby thread [1], we've got an
> interference regarding -R command line argument. I agree that it's a good
> idea to reserve -R for recovery configuration write to be consistent with
> pg_basebackup, so I've updated my patch to use another letters:
The patch has rotten and does not apply anymore. Could you please
send a rebased version? I have moved the patch to next CF, waiting on
author for now.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-12-01 02:59:13 | Re: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-12-01 02:55:14 | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |