| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Simplifying "standby mode" |
| Date: | 2006-09-12 21:38:48 |
| Message-ID: | 87odtku5nb.fsf@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> This would be the exception, not the rule, and should not be documented
> as if it were the rule. It's not really different from telling people
> to expect a forced initdb at a minor release: you are simply
> misrepresenting the project's policy.
Well it's never been a factor before so I'm not sure there is a policy. Is
there now a policy that WAL files like database formats are as far as possible
not going to be changed in minor versions?
This means if there's a bug fix that affects WAL records the new point release
will generally have to be patched to recognise the broken WAL records and
process them correctly rather than simply generate corrected records. That
could be quite a burden.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-12 22:08:02 | Re: Simplifying "standby mode" |
| Previous Message | Gevik Babakhani | 2006-09-12 21:11:54 | UUID datatype progress |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-12 22:08:02 | Re: Simplifying "standby mode" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-12 20:23:39 | Re: Simplifying "standby mode" |