From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: Make pg_stop_backup() archive wait optional |
Date: | 2017-03-06 17:53:13 |
Message-ID: | 20170306175312.GX9812@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert, all,
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 9:12 AM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> > Yes, that makes sense. Attached are two patches as requested:
> >
> > 01 - Just marks pg_stop_backup() variants as parallel restricted
> > 02 - Add the wait_for_archive param to pg_stop_backup().
> >
> > These apply cleanly on 272adf4.
>
> Committed 01. Nobody's offered an opinion about 02 yet, so I'm not
> going to commit that, but one minor nitpick:
>
> + WAL to be archived. This behavior is only useful for backup
> + software which independently monitors WAL archiving, otherwise WAL
> + required to make the backup consistent might be missing and make the backup
>
> I think this should really say "...which independently monitors WAL
> archiving. Otherwise, WAL..."
Regarding 02, I certainly see that as valuable for the reasons which
David outlined in his initial email. I can certainly take point on
getting it committed, but I wouldn't complain if someone else does
either.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-06 18:05:44 | Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-06 17:48:40 | Re: PATCH: Make pg_stop_backup() archive wait optional |