| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Samrat Revagade <revagade(dot)samrat(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |
| Date: | 2013-10-24 18:12:27 |
| Message-ID: | 5269630B.1060107@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24.10.2013 20:39, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/24/2013 04:15 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>> If we do what you are suggesting, it seems like a single line patch to me.
>> In XLogSaveBufferForHint(), we probably need to look at this additional GUC
>> to decide whether or not to backup the block.
>
> Wait, what? Why are we having an additional GUC?
>
> I'm opposed to the idea of having a GUC to enable failback. When would
> anyone using replication ever want to disable that?
For example, if you're not replicating for high availability purposes,
but to keep a reporting standby up-to-date.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-10-24 18:18:02 | Re: Reasons not to like asprintf |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-10-24 17:39:31 | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |