Re: [HACKERS]odd output in restore mode
Simon Riggs <[email protected]> Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:25:01 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.patches,gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 16:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[email protected]> writes: > > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 16:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I thought the latest conclusion was that changing the behavior of > >> pg_standby itself wouldn't address the problem anyway, and that what we > >> need is just a docs patch recommending that people use safe copying > >> methods in their scripts that copy to the archive area? > > > Plus the rest of this patch, which is really very simple. > > Why? AFAICT the patch is just a kluge that adds user-visible complexity > without providing a solution that's actually sure to work. First, I'm not the one objecting to the current behaviour. Currently, there is a wait in there that can be removed if you use a copy utility that sets size after it does a copy. So we agreed to make it optional (at PGCon). -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches