| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion) |
| Date: | 2022-07-21 11:20:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20220721112026.xvqhrhtvsev47keo@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Jul-21, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:01 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > I've got no opinions on this. I don't like either 1 or 3, so I'm going
> > to add and backpatch a new GUC allow_recovery_tablespaces as the
> > override mechanism.
> >
> > If others disagree with this choice, please speak up.
>
> Would it help if we back-patched the allow_in_place_tablespaces stuff?
> I'm not sure how hard/destabilising that would be, but I could take a
> look tomorrow.
Yeah, I think that would reduce cruft. I'm not sure this is more
against backpatching policy or less, compared to adding a separate
GUC just for this bugfix.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"The problem with the facetime model is not just that it's demoralizing, but
that the people pretending to work interrupt the ones actually working."
(Paul Graham)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-07-21 11:25:05 | Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-07-21 11:17:51 | Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion) |