Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived
Date: 2006-08-14 02:52:26
Message-ID: 200608140252.k7E2qQ400656@momjian.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > This issue is closed, right?
>
> We've agreed we need two functions, but it's not done yet. Seems pretty
> trivial though ...

OK, that's what I was unclear about.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2006-08-14 03:03:30 Re: problem with volatile functions in subselects ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-08-14 02:50:14 Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-08-14 03:28:20 Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-08-14 02:50:14 Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived