On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Michael Paquier >>> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Michael Paquier >>>>> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Why only for back-branches? Do you have better solution for head? >> >> Yes, I mentioned an idea upthread to set up the minimum recovery point >> saved in the backup to the last replayed LSN. Though that's not >> acceptable for 9.6 as this requires changing the output of >> pg_stop_backup() with a new field containing the bytes of pg_control. >> I am not sure how others feel about that, >> > > Yeah, I think that is totally different angle to fix this issue, so > don't you think it is better to start a separate thread to discuss > about it for 10.0 and mark this patch as ready for committer.
I'd like to tackle this problem in 10.0, but that will strongly depend on how my patches move on in CF1 and CF2. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
