From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jun Ishiduka <ishizuka(dot)jun(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca, cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby |
Date: | 2011-09-22 13:24:51 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwEQpF2nY1CTZkioXu=ifZtVTjF0dq_RiqJUzu7MGOACjw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2011/9/13 Jun Ishiduka <ishizuka(dot)jun(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp>:
>>
>> Update patch.
>>
>> Changes:
>> * set 'on' full_page_writes by user (in document)
>> * read "FROM: XX" in backup_label (in xlog.c)
>> * check status when pg_stop_backup is executed (in xlog.c)
>
> Thanks for updating the patch.
>
> Before reviewing the patch, to encourage people to comment and
> review the patch, I explain what this patch provides:
Attached is the updated version of the patch. I refactored the code, fixed
some bugs, added lots of source code comments, improved the document,
but didn't change the basic design. Please check this patch, and let's use
this patch as the base if you agree with that.
In the current patch, there is no safeguard for preventing users from
taking backup during recovery when FPW is disabled. This is unsafe.
Are you planning to implement such a safeguard?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
standby_online_backup_08_fujii.patch | text/x-patch | 35.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-22 13:27:21 | Re: [v9.2] make_greater_string() does not return a string in some cases |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-22 13:20:42 | Re: Adding CORRESPONDING to Set Operations |