On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I think Daniel has run into this problem more than anyone else, so hearing > it's fixed for him makes me feel a lot better that it's been resolved. I'd > characterize this problem as a medium grade data corruption issue. It's not > security issue bad that it needs to be released tomorrow, but a backbranch > release of at least 9.0/9.1 that includes it would be a big relief for > people nervous about this. I'd hate to see that slip forward to where it > gets sucked into the holiday vortex.
The first time I encountered this I had to reason very carefully for a while that I just did not suffer some sort of corruption problem or recovery bug. After I figured out that normal (non-hot-standby) recovery worked and what the general mechanism was only then I was sort-of-assuaged into letting it slide as a workaround. I think a novice user would be scared half to death: I know I was the first time. That's not a great impression for the project to leave for what is not, at its root, a vast defect, and the fact it's occurring for people when they use rsync rather than my very sensitive backup routines is indication that it's not very corner-ey. So that's my take on it. It's not a "tomorrow" severity release (we've been living with the workaround for months, even though it is blocking some things), but I would really appreciate an expedited release to enable unattended hot-standby operation and to avoid scaring those who encounter this. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
