Re: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, 'Kyotaro Horiguchi' <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data
Date: 2021-01-21 14:30:12
Message-ID: 31f2601cf5856f0da985b12187b222bc5e338567.camel@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:09 +0000, osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> > My vote is that we should not have a GUC for such an unlikely event, and that
> > stopping recovery is good enough.
>
> OK. IIUC, my current patch for this fix doesn't need to be changed or withdrawn.
> Thank you for your explanation.

Well, that's just my opinion.
Fujii Masao seemed to disagree with the patch, and his voice carries weight.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amul Sul 2021-01-21 14:46:46 Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2021-01-21 14:24:10 Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies