From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Change pg_last_xlog_receive_location not to move backwards |
Date: | 2011-02-11 17:25:29 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinWH2wmaEdHW+wKLFHUf0j78AFKTbX9u9DhKQ7J@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Fujii, all,
>
> * Fujii Masao (masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> That logic exists because we'd like to check that newly-received WAL
>> data is consistent with previous one by validating the header of new
>> WAL file. So since we need the header of new WAL file, we retreat the
>> replication starting location to the beginning of the WAL file when
>> reconnecting to the primary.
>
> Thanks for that explanation, but I can't help but wonder why it doesn't
> make more sense to introduce a new variable to track the value you want
> rather than reusing an existing one and then adding a variable to
> represent what the old variable was already doing.
+1.
It seems like there may be some more significant changes in this area
needed; however, for now I think the best fix is the one with the
least chance of breaking anything.
> Also, you really should reformat the docs properly when you change them,
> rather than leaving the lines ragged..
It's OK to leave them a little ragged, I think. It eases back-patching.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-02-11 17:26:22 | Re: Range Types: << >> -|- ops vs empty range |
Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-02-11 17:16:36 | Re: Careful PL/Perl Release Not Required |