From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_rewind: Don't error if the two clusters are already on the sa |
Date: | 2015-12-14 15:21:38 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobg5a6GsZY22_dhGvrOzVWsj8i+6KhciusbSzzDQDtGsA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>>> pg_rewind: Don't error if the two clusters are already on the same timeline
>>> This previously resulted in an error and a nonzero exit status, but
>>> after discussion this should rather be a noop with a zero exit status.
>>
>> Hm, if we're going to do that, shouldn't we back-patch the behavior
>> change into 9.5 as well?
>
> +1. It would be good to get consistent across branches here.
This is one of the (darned few) things still on the open items list
for 9.5. Peter, are you going to take care of this? Or alternatively
make an argument that we shouldn't do this?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-12-14 16:56:19 | pgsql: Fix out-of-memory error handling in ParameterDescription message |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-12-14 10:55:28 | pgsql: Fix bug in SetOffsetVacuumLimit() triggered by find_multixact_st |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-12-14 15:40:23 | Another XML build issue |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-12-14 15:06:58 | Re: Fixing warnings in back branches? |