At Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:02:11 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in <cab7npqssbzhokcxybh9_zguenr0hckrcpc9dmk6vvcgbez1...@mail.gmail.com> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> On 2016-12-22 08:32:56 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > >>> I plan to commit this later today. Hope I got the reviewers roughly > >>> right. > >> > >> And pushed. Thanks for the work on this everyone. > > > > Cool. Also, +1 for the important/unimportant terminology. I like that. > > Thanks for the commit.
Thanks for commiting. By the way this issue seems beeing in the ToDo list. https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#Point-In-Time_Recovery_.28PITR.29 > Consider avoiding WAL switching via archive_timeout if there > has been no database activity > - archive_timeout behavior for no activity > - Re: archive_timeout behavior for no activity So I marked it as "done". 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
