On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout <klep...@svana.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:42:49PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I think the behavior is correct (what else would we do? we must be >> able to replace the subsequent WAL records that use the new >> tablespace) but I agree that the hint is a little misleading. >> Ideally, it seems like we'd like to issue that hint if we're planning >> to restart, but not otherwise. You get that same message, for >> example, if the DBA performs an immediate shutdown. > > A bit of a comment from the sidelines: there's no particular reason why > the tablespaces on the master would need to match the tablespaces on > the slave. For a first cut it would seem to me that you should just be > able to ignore the tablespace commands on the slave. Not sure whether > that's easy or not though.
It's not particularly easy, and it might also not be what you want. Perhaps in an ideal world we would have some system for mapping tablespaces on the master to tablespaces on the slave, but I doubt it's worth the effort: the existing system is not terribly onerous. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
