| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pierre Timmermans <ptim007(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: using pg_basebackup for point in time recovery |
| Date: | 2018-06-26 05:10:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20180626051023.GB31353@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:51:10PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> FYI, in recent discussions on the docs list:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEyumGh3r05U3_mhRrEU=dfacdRr2HEw140MvN7FSBMSyw@mail.gmail.com
I did not recall this one. Thanks for the reminder, Bruce.
> There was the conclusion that:
>
> If it's a clean backpatch I'd say it is -- people who are using
> PostgreSQL 9.6 will be reading the documentation for 9.6 etc, so they
> will not know about the fix then.
>
> If it's not a clean backpatch I can certainly see considering it, but if
> it's not a lot of effort then I'd say it's definitely worth it.
>
> so the rule I have been using for backpatching doc stuff has changed
> recently.
In the case of this thread, I think that the patch applies cleanly
anyway as this comes from the period where hot standbys have been
introduced. So that would not be a lot of work... Speaking of which,
it would be nice to be sure about the wording folks here would prefer
using before fixing anything ;p
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arnaud L. | 2018-06-26 06:24:48 | Re: Schema/Data conversion opensource tools from MySQL to PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-26 00:37:58 | Re: Too many range table entries error |