Re: gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint
Date: 2017-03-31 06:59:18
Message-ID: CABUevEwHSy=oaimevRryg=sFC-0CSkyksFFt85BCM-uCAgfDsA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am Montag, den 27.02.2017, 16:20 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander:
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Is there an argument for back-patching this?
> >
> >
> > Seems you were typing that at the same time as we did.
> >
> >
> > I'm considering it, but not swayed in either direction. Should I take
> > your comment as a vote that we should back-patch it?
>
> I've checked back into this thread, and there seems to be a +1 from Tom
> and a +(0.5-1) from Simon for backpatching, and no obvious -1s. Did you
> decide against it in the end, or is this still an open item?

No, I plan to work on it, so it's still an open item. I've been backlogged
with other things, but I will try to get too it soon.

(This also includes considering Jeff's note)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2017-03-31 07:01:17 Re: Typo in libpq
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2017-03-31 06:50:28 Re: Partitioned tables and relfilenode