On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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.
You might think that but I won't have. I will still monitor my log files carefully and check the last WAL file is received and treated on the slave as I currently do. I prefer checking it visually than using a script. At least, now, I have a chance to have it working without a manual intervention. > 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. Well, I don't think we'll agree on that. Anyway, have a nice day :). -- Guillaume -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
