From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add timeline to partial WAL segments |
Date: | 2018-12-13 17:48:36 |
Message-ID: | cdbaba85-6765-b1aa-f05e-338379cac2e6@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/13/18 8:35 AM, David Steele wrote:
> On 12/12/18 7:17 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 07:54:05AM -0500, David Steele wrote:
>
>>> But, we could at least use the . notation and end up with something like
>>> 000000010000000100000001.00000002.partial or perhaps
>>> 000000010000000100000001.T00000002.partial? Maybe
>>> 000000010000000100000001.00000002.tpartial?
>>>
I updated the patch to use 000000010000000100000001.00000002.partial
since this is more consistent with what we do in other cases.
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
add-timeline-to-partial-v2.patch | text/plain | 3.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-12-13 17:58:02 | Re: Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-13 17:35:15 | Is DLIST_STATIC_INIT() a net loss? |