On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 08:20:02AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> One thing I would like to ask is that why you think walreceiver is more >> >> appropriate for writing XLOG_END_OF_RECOVERY record than startup >> >> process. I was thinking the opposite, because if we do so, we might be >> >> able to skip the end-of-recovery checkpoint even in file-based >> >> log-shipping >> >> case. >> > >> > Right now, WALReceiver has one code path/use case. >> > >> > Startup has so many, its much harder to know whether we'll screw up one of >> > them. >> > >> > If we can add it in either place then I choose the simplest, most >> > relevant place. If the code is the same, we can move it around later. >> > >> > Let me write the code and then we can think some more. >> >> Are we still considering trying to do this for 9.2? Seems it's been >> over a month without a new patch, and it's not entirely clear that we >> know what the design should be. > > Did this get completed?
No, not yet. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
