Re: alpha3 release schedule?

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Florian Pflug <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hiroyuki Yamada <yamada(at)kokolink(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: alpha3 release schedule?
Date: 2009-12-22 16:40:24
Message-ID: 4B30F678.2010909@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 18:17 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> By "add" I meant to write the feature, test and then support it
>>> afterwards, not to re-discuss editing the Wiki.
>> That's exactly what I meant too. I *did* write the feature, but you
>> removed it before committing.
>
> I removed it because you showed it wouldn't work.

I did?

I believe this is the discussion that lead to you removing it (6th of
December, thread "Hot Standby, recent changes"):

Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 12:32 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> > 4. Need to handle the case where master is started up with
>> > wal_standby_info=true, shut down, and restarted with
>> > wal_standby_info=false, while the standby server runs continuously. And
>> > the code in StartupXLog() to initialize recovery snapshot from a
>> > shutdown checkpoint needs to check that too.
>
> I don't really understand the use case for shutting down the server and
> then using it as a HS base backup. Why would anyone do that? Why would
> they have their server down for potentially hours, when they can take
> the backup while the server is up? If the server is idle, it can be
> up-and-idle just as easily as down-and-idle, in which case we wouldn't
> need to support this at all. Adding yards of code for this capability
> isn't important to me. I'd rather strip the whole lot out than keep
> fiddling with a low priority area. Please justify this as a real world
> solution before we continue trying to support it.

The issue I mentioned had nothing to do with starting from a shutdown
checkpoint - it's still a problem if you keep the standby running
through the restart cycle in the master) - but maybe you thought it was?
Or was there something else?

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-12-22 17:13:02 Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-12-22 16:31:03 Re: Tuplestore should remember the memory context it's created in