| From: | Jun Ishiduka <ishizuka(dot)jun(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby |
| Date: | 2011-10-15 01:35:45 |
| Message-ID: | 201110150137.p9F1b4ii004136@ccmds32.silk.ntts.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> As I suggested in the reply to Simon, I think that the change of FPW
> should be WAL-logged separately from that of HS parameters. ISTM
> packing them in one WAL record makes XLogReportParameters()
> quite confusing. Thought?
I want to confirm the reply of Simon. I think we cannot decide how this
code should be if there is not the reply.
> if (!shutdown && XLogStandbyInfoActive())
> + {
> LogStandbySnapshot(&checkPoint.oldestActiveXid, &checkPoint.nextXid);
> + XLogReportParameters(REPORT_ON_BACKEND);
> + }
>
> Why doesn't the change of FPW need to be WAL-logged when
> shutdown checkpoint is performed? It's helpful to add the comment
> explaining why.
Sure. I update the patch soon.
--------------------------------------------
Jun Ishizuka
NTT Software Corporation
TEL：045-317-7018
E-Mail: ishizuka(dot)jun(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp
--------------------------------------------
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-15 01:58:29 | Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-10-15 00:26:38 | Re: about EDITOR_LINENUMBER_SWITCH |