| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add timeline to partial WAL segments |
| Date: | 2018-12-20 20:56:12 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob68thGzXPXRZF79FnyFnRUtzt2M=nJTi5ux-wYz=BaGw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 6:05 PM David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> The question in my mind: is it safe to back-patch?
I cannot imagine it being a good idea to stick a behavioral change
like this into a minor release. Yeah, it lets people get out from
under this problem a lot sooner, but it potentially breaks backup
scripts even for people who were not suffering in the first place. I
don't think solving this problem for the people who have it is worth
inflicting that kind of breakage on everybody.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-12-20 20:58:02 | Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-12-20 20:44:07 | Re: lock level for DETACH PARTITION looks sketchy |