On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/23/2014 11:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> >> At least for master, we should consider changing the way the archiving >> works so that we only archive WAL that was generated in the same server. >> I.e. we should never try to archive WAL files belonging to another >> timeline. >> >> I just remembered that we discussed a different problem related to this >> some time ago, at >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected]. >> The conclusion of that was that at promotion, we should not archive the >> last, partial, segment from the old timeline. > > > So, this is what I came up with for master. Does anyone see a problem with > it? Thinking long-term, this is a solid approach, so +1 for it. I just tested the patch and the extra segment files do not show up anymore. Patch looks good as well. -- Michael
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
