On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The amount of code changes to allow pg_basebackup to make a backup from >> the standby seems to be small. So I ended up merging that changes and the >> infrastructure patch. WIP patch attached. But I'd happy to split the patch >> again >> if you want. > > Attached is the updated version of the patch. I wrote the limitations of > standby-only backup in the document and changed the error messages.
I'm looking at this patch and wondering why we're doing so many press-ups to ensure full_page_writes parameter is on. This will still fail if you use a utility that removes the full page writes, but fail silently. I think it would be beneficial to explicitly check that all WAL records have full page writes actually attached to them until we achieve consistency. Surprised to see XLOG_FPW_CHANGE is there again after I objected to it and it was removed. Not sure why? We already track other parameters when they change, so I don't want to introduce a whole new WAL record for each new parameter whose change needs tracking. Please make a note for committer that wal version needs bumping. I think its probably time to start a README.recovery to explain why this works the way it does. Other changes can then start to do that as well, so we can keep this to sane levels of complexity. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
