On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For 9.4, clearly yes, this would change the semantic of recovery and
> this is not something wise to do at the end of a development cycle.
> For 9.5 though, this is a different story. It clearly depends on if
> this is though as useful enough to change how recovery fetches WAL
> files (in this case by scanning existing repslots). There are other
> things to consider as well like for example: do we reset the
> restart_lsn of a repslot if needed WAL files are not here anymore or
> abort recovery? I haven't worked much with repslots though...
Coming back to that, I am still wondering if for the time being it
would not be better to add in pg_basebackup documentation that
replication slot information is not added in a backup, per se the
patch attached.
Regards,
--
Michael