| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, 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: | 2017-02-27 17:51:18 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+j+TDYEX1jQt11kkSomCrQ=UvR_q4=bMZtGsnNO4oeku=A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 26 February 2017 at 20:55, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> What do others think?
Changing the output behaviour of a command isn't something we usually
do as a backpatch.
This change doesn't affect the default behaviour so probably wouldn't
make a difference to the outcome of the situation that generated this
thread.
Having said that, if it helps others to avoid mistakes in the future
then its worth doing, so +1 to backpatch.
I've looked into changing the actual underlying behaviour and I don't
think its feasible, so making this change will at least allow some
responsiveness from us. Thanks Michael, Magnus.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-02-27 17:55:21 | Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-02-27 17:46:08 | Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |