On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
By the way, thank you for taking the time to provide input. I think we're in good shape here now. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
