Re: base backup client as auxiliary backend process

From: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: base backup client as auxiliary backend process
Date: 2020-01-15 00:40:38
Message-ID: CA+fd4k4A9hadga4AtyKfxQMgZ9DMzPsV=NAvCcMVEjEZye8vXw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 22:58, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-01-14 07:32, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > - <entry>Replication slot name used by this WAL receiver</entry>
> > + <entry>
> > + Replication slot name used by this WAL receiver. This is only set if a
> > + permanent replication slot is set using <xref
> > + linkend="guc-primary-slot-name"/>. Otherwise, the WAL receiver may use
> > + a temporary replication slot (determined by <xref
> > + linkend="guc-wal-receiver-create-temp-slot"/>), but these are not shown
> > + here.
> > + </entry>
> >
> > Now that the slot name is shown even if it's a temp slot the above
> > documentation changes needs to be changed. Other changes look good to
> > me.
>
> committed, thanks

Thank you for committing these patches.

Could you rebase the main patch that adds base backup client as
auxiliary backend process since the previous version patch (v3)
conflicts with the current HEAD?

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message asaba.takanori@fujitsu.com 2020-01-15 01:31:44 Complete data erasure
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-01-15 00:37:30 Re: Add support for automatically updating Unicode derived files