From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: timeline garbage in pg_basebackup (was gcc 4.6 warnings -Wunused-but-set-variable) |
Date: | 2011-04-27 18:21:21 |
Message-ID: | 1303928481.2950.0.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On ons, 2011-04-27 at 19:17 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 18:55, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > On tis, 2011-03-29 at 23:48 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> The line I marked in pg_basebackup.c might be an actual problem: It
> >> goes through a whole lot to figure out the timeline and then doesn't
> >> do anything with it.
> >
> > This hasn't been addressed yet. It doesn't manifest itself as an actual
> > problem, but it looks as though someone had intended something in that
> > code and the code doesn't do that.
>
> Do you have a ref to the actual problem? The subject change killed my
> threading, the email was trimmed to not include the actual problem,
> and it appears not to be listed on the open items list... ;)
In BaseBackup(), the variable timeline is assigned in a somewhat
elaborate fashion, but then the result is not used for anything.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-04-27 18:30:41 | Re: Typed-tables patch broke pg_upgrade |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-04-27 18:15:02 | Re: SSI non-serializable UPDATE performance |