| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] What does it mean by XLOG_BACKUP_RECORD? |
| Date: | 2017-12-11 04:54:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoA1CMUHozdsi3sgfDjq15AzSk-BVw2vPJk1vyWgF6aiBg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 6/29/17 06:09, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Thanks, I agree to use XLOG_BACKUP_END instead.
>>
>>> Worse, the current comment implies that
>>> minRecoveryPoint is incorrectly set if it is true. Bleh.
>>
>> Looking at the condition, we use minRecoveryPoint only when
>> ControlFile->backupEndRequired is *false*. So I guess that it means
>> that minRecoveryPoint is incorrectly set if
>> ControlFile->backupEndReuired is true. Am I missing something?
>
> I agree with you that the logic in the comment is correct. I've
> committed just the symbol change.
>
Thank you for picking up an old thread and committing it!
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-12-11 05:03:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted. |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-12-11 04:51:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |