On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 20:21, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On ons, 2011-04-27 at 19:17 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 18:55, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> > On tis, 2011-03-29 at 23:48 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> >> The line I marked in pg_basebackup.c might be an actual problem: It >> >> goes through a whole lot to figure out the timeline and then doesn't >> >> do anything with it. >> > >> > This hasn't been addressed yet. It doesn't manifest itself as an actual >> > problem, but it looks as though someone had intended something in that >> > code and the code doesn't do that. >> >> Do you have a ref to the actual problem? The subject change killed my >> threading, the email was trimmed to not include the actual problem, >> and it appears not to be listed on the open items list... ;) > > In BaseBackup(), the variable timeline is assigned in a somewhat > elaborate fashion, but then the result is not used for anything.
Ah, I see it. What happened there is I accidentally included it when I split my patches apart. It's required in the "stream WAL in parallel to the base backup to decrease requirements on wal_keep_segmtents". But that patch was postponed since there were still bugs in it, and it wasn't entirely feature-complete, and we were pretty far past feature-freeze. So it's not needed in 9.1. I'll rip it out and move it over to the patch once it's ready to go for 9.2. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
