| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(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 20:07:57 |
| Message-ID: | 52697E1D.8050605@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/24/2013 11:12 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> 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.
What kind of overhead are we talking about here? You probably said, but
I've had a mail client meltdown and lost a lot of my -hackers emails.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-10-24 20:14:14 | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2013-10-24 19:58:55 | Re: missing locking in at least INSERT INTO view WITH CHECK |