From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby |
Date: | 2016-02-12 17:56:35 |
Message-ID: | 20160212175635.6zledt7gvww24wfj@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-02-12 12:37:35 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > I'm not really a fan. I'd rather change existing callers to add a
> > 'flags' bitmask argument. Right now there can't really be XLogInserts()
> > in extension code, so that's pretty ok to change.
>
> Yeah, but to what benefit? You're just turning a smaller patch into a
> bigger one and requiring churning a bunch of code that wouldn't
> otherwise need to be touched. I think Michael has a good point.
It has the advantage of not ending up with an extra interface, that
we're otherwise never going to get rid of? If not now, when would we
remove it? Sure it touches a few more lines, but that's entirely trivial
mechanical changes, so what?
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-13 04:01:38 | Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-12 17:37:35 | Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Steele | 2016-02-12 18:05:01 | Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication |
Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2016-02-12 17:56:10 | Re: Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension |