Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery
Date: 2008-10-02 23:07:55
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 18:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> Version 7
>> After reading this for awhile, I realized that there is a rather
>> fundamental problem with it: it switches into "consistent recovery"
>> mode as soon as it's read WAL beyond ControlFile->minRecoveryPoint.
> Just seen this patch has been bounced into November CommitFest, even
> though the new patch fixes all of the concerns raised.
> I'm concerned that this is going to make the final Hot Standby patch
> fairly large, which will make it even harder to review, test and
> generally get accepted.
> What's the best way to make this easier for you/others to review?

The fact that it's been put on the November list doesn't mean it can't 
be reviewed and committed before then.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2008-10-03 03:42:03
Subject: parallel restore test results
Previous:From: Decibel!Date: 2008-10-02 22:56:16
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-10-05 18:51:10
Subject: Re: Subtransaction commits and Hot Standby
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-10-02 22:11:28
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group