On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> >> I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the implementation >> >> for >> >> 10, and as such is "open for fixing". However, it's not a very critical >> >> bug >> >> so I doubt it should be a release blocker, but if someone wants to work >> >> on a >> >> fix I think we should commit it. >> > >> > I agree with you. I'd like to hear opinions from other hackers as well. >> >> It's preferable to make it work. If it's not easily possible, then we >> should prohibit it. >> >> Comments from Stephen (original committer)? > > I agree that it'd be preferable to make it work, but I'm not sure I can > commit to having it done in short order. I'm happy to work to prohibit > it, but if someone has a few spare cycles to make it actually work, > that'd be great.
Fixing the limitation instead of prohibiting it looks like a better way of doing things to me. It would be hard to explain to users why the implementation does not consider archive_mode = always. Blocking it is just four lines of code, still that feels wrong. > In short, I agree with Magnus and feel like I'm more-or-less in the same > boat as he is (though slightly jealous as that's not actually physically > the case, for I hear he has a rather nice boat...). That means a PG-EU in Sweden at some point?! -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
