| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| 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> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 'Kyotaro Horiguchi' <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data |
| Date: | 2021-03-25 14:21:29 |
| Message-ID: | 944e56dd-b200-01cd-8135-77e505cd8137@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/25/21 3:55 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> 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.
Fujii, does the new patch in [1] address your concerns?
Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | torikoshia | 2021-03-25 14:45:17 | Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2021-03-25 13:56:55 | Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)? |