Re: [HACKERS] Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Jacky Leng" <lengjianquan(at)163(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled
Date: 2007-11-15 20:38:41
Message-ID: 23243.1195159121@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Here's an updated version of the patch. There was a bogus assertion in
> the previous one, comparing against mdsync_cycle_ctr instead of
> mdunlink_cycle_ctr.

Applied with minor corrections.

I'm not sure whether we should consider back-patching this. Thoughts?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-11-15 20:49:27 Re: [HACKERS] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris
Previous Message andrew 2007-11-15 18:43:21 Re: Heads up: 8.3beta3 to be wrapped this evening

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Vinokur 2007-11-16 09:19:13 Re: hashlittle(), hashbig(), hashword() and endianness
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2007-11-15 11:23:44 Re: hashlittle(), hashbig(), hashword() and endianness