| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Samrat Revagade <revagade(dot)samrat(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |
| Date: | 2013-10-24 17:39:31 |
| Message-ID: | 52695B53.7050306@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/24/2013 04:15 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> If we do what you are suggesting, it seems like a single line patch to me.
> In XLogSaveBufferForHint(), we probably need to look at this additional GUC
> to decide whether or not to backup the block.
Wait, what? Why are we having an additional GUC?
I'm opposed to the idea of having a GUC to enable failback. When would
anyone using replication ever want to disable that?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-10-24 18:12:27 | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-24 17:28:10 | Re: missing locking in at least INSERT INTO view WITH CHECK |