I almost forgot this. At Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:44:08 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in <20161121.154408.47398334.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > Hello, > > At Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:41:27 +0900, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in > <cab7npqsetnfjhgab+te2m68vc_3bwbsepe+dcmb8xnh0uyw...@mail.gmail.com> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > > So, all my original concern were cleared. > > > > Cool. Perhaps this could be marked as ready for committer then? > > ^^; > > > > The last one is > > > resetting by a checkpointer restart.. I'd like to remove that if > > > Andres agrees. > > > > Could you clarify this point? v18 makes sure that the last segment > > switch stays in shared memory so as we could still skip the activity > > of archive_timeout correctly. > > I don't doubt that it works. (I don't comment on the comment:) My > concern is complexity. I don't think we wish to save almost no > harm behavior caused by a thing rarely happens. But, if you and > others on this thread don't mind the complexity, It's not worth > asserting myself more. > > So, after a day waiting, I'll mark this as ready for committer > again.
I have marked this as ready for committer again. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
