From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Diogo Biazus" <diogob(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: xlogdump behaviour translating dropped relations |
Date: | 2006-07-26 21:18:33 |
Message-ID: | 18298.1153948713@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Diogo Biazus" <diogob(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 7/26/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'm not sure it should be making any attempt to translate anything.
>> What makes you think the oids even refer to the current database?
> I'm getting a new database connection based on the dbNode of the current
> xlog record. And I expect that the user informed a connection to the backend
> that originated the xlog files. Is this not going to work?
No. I for one need this thing to analyze WAL dumps from databases
I don't even have access to, let alone have up-and-running locally.
It's really not going to be acceptable for the program to fail if it
can't have access to a database matching what it sees in the log.
The dropped-relation problem is just the first manifestation you happen
to have run into of why that's an unacceptable restriction, but there
are other reasons.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-26 21:18:41 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-07-26 21:16:33 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to |