On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 17:50 +0200, Guillaume Smet wrote: > I think it's a step forward, maybe not sufficient for you but I prefer > the situation now than before. It's safer because of the principle of > least surprise: I'm pretty sure a lot of people didn't even think that > the last WAL file was systematically missing.
If I hadn't spoken out, I think you would have assumed you were safe and so would everybody else. Time is saved only if you perform the step manually - if time saving was your objective you should have been using a script in the first place. If you're using a script, carry on using it: nothing has changed, you still need to check. > As Heikki stated it, if you have concrete proposals of how we can fix > the other corner cases, we're all ears. Considering my current level > of knowledge, that's all I can do by myself. I'm not sure there is a solution even. Fixing a broken archive_command is not something PostgreSQL can achieve, by definition. It's good you submitted a patch, I have no problem there, BTW, but applying a patch during beta, should either fix the problem or not be applied at all. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
