Re: PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)
Date: 2004-07-20 09:45:39
Message-ID: 40FCE9C3.3080502@coretech.co.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Great that it's not fundamental - and hopefully with this discovery, the
probability you mentioned is being squashed towards zero a bit more :-)

Don't let this early bug detract from what is really a superb piece of work!

regards

Mark

Tom Lane wrote:

>In any case this isn't a fundamental bug, just an insufficiently
>smart safety check. But thanks for finding it! As is, the code has
>a nonzero probability of failure in the field :-( and I don't know
>how we'd have tracked it down without a reproducible test case.
>
>
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Radha Krishnan 2004-07-20 11:08:55 Help!
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2004-07-20 09:04:29 Re: PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gaetano Mendola 2004-07-20 09:49:31 Re: localhost redux
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2004-07-20 09:04:29 Re: PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2004-07-20 10:22:33 Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T option
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2004-07-20 09:04:29 Re: PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)