On 09/07/2010 04:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
In theory, that's true, but if we do that, then there's an even bigger problem: the slave might have replayed WAL ahead of the master location; therefore the slave is now corrupt and a new base backup must be taken.
The slave isn't corrupt. It would suffice to "late abort" committed transactions the master doesn't know about.
However, I realize that undoing of WAL isn't something that's implemented (nor planned). So it's probably easier to forward the master in such a case.
Yeah, I hope we'll get there eventually.
Understood. Thanks. Markus Wanner -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
