On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> Actually, my previous email was all nonsense, wasn't it? If we don't >>>> reach the consistency point, we can't enter normal running anyway - >>>> shut down is the only option no matter what. >>> >>> Presumably you mean that the way its currently coded is the way it should >>> stay? >> >> Uh, maybe, but it's not obvious to me that it actually is coded that >> way. I don't see any safeguard that prevents recovery from pausing >> before consistency is released. Is there one? Where? > > Oh, sorry for my poor explanation. > > My explanation is true if we'll just change the code so that it ignores > pause_at_recovery_target until recovery reaches the consistency point. > Simon changed the code in that way yesterday.
Yep, I think we're good on this one now. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
