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: 2021-01-25 08:55:24
Message-ID: 528512f699cc4acc24d8c8195e53ed3e4e699159.camel@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2021-01-25 at 08:19 +0000, osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> > I think you should pst another patch where the second, now superfluous, error
> > message is removed.
>
> Updated. This patch showed no failure during regression tests
> and has been aligned by pgindent.

Looks good to me.
I'll set it to "ready for committer" again.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2021-01-25 09:06:31 Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)
Previous Message Neil Chen 2021-01-25 08:44:48 Re: Phrase search vs. multi-lexeme tokens