| From: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New trigger option of pg_standby |
| Date: | 2009-05-13 18:32:15 |
| Message-ID: | 4A0B122F.20504@pse-consulting.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
> We're in Beta. You can't just go yanking stuff like that. Beta testers
> will be justifiably very annoyed.
>
> Please calm down.
>
> pg_standby is useful and needs to be correct. And its existence as a
> standard module is one of the things that has made me feel confident
> about recommending people to use the PITR stuff. I'll be very annoyed
> if it were to get pulled.
Since mentioned in the docs, I consider it at least the semi-official
tool for pgsql PITR handling. But as this discussion reveals, the api is
flawed, and will not allow guaranteed consistency (whatever pg_standby
tries) until fixed. While this may not be a bug of the restore_script
call, the pitr procedure in total is partially broken (in the sense that
it doesn't provide what most users expect in a secure way) and thus
needs to be fixed. It seems a fix can't be provided without extending
the api.
Regards,
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-05-13 18:36:25 | Re: New trigger option of pg_standby |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2009-05-13 18:29:59 | Re: Implementation of GROUPING SETS (T431: Extended grouping capabilities) |