Re: [HACKERS] HotStandby vs. flatfile updates

2009-02-11 Thread Bernd Helmle
--On Mittwoch, Februar 11, 2009 19:27:51 + Simon Riggs wrote: I did publish v9h to Hackers on 27 Jan, but did not put a new version onto the Wiki at that time. Sorry Bernd. Great! I just thought its worth reporting it. Sorry for the noise and missing the new patch version. I am havi

Re: [HACKERS] HotStandby vs. flatfile updates

2009-02-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 19:48 +0100, Gianni Ciolli wrote: > Probably you are running an old version: it's not your fault, since in > the same page I can read that 9g is the last published version (I know > that Simon is having some difficulties with git). I did publish v9h to Hackers on 27 Jan, bu

Re: [HACKERS] HotStandby vs. flatfile updates

2009-02-11 Thread Gianni Ciolli
Hi Bernd, On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 03:49:24PM +0100, Bernd Helmle wrote: > I'm currently facing with a strange behavior during HotStandby Testing. > That's what i'm actually doing: it seems that this was a known bug ("snapshot bug"), which as noted in http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot_Stand

[HACKERS] HotStandby vs. flatfile updates

2009-02-11 Thread Bernd Helmle
I'm currently facing with a strange behavior during HotStandby Testing. That's what i'm actually doing: MASTER: CREATE DATABASE foo; archive_timeout)> STANDBY: postgres=# SELECT oid, datname FROM pg_database; oid | datname ---+--- 1 | template1 11561 | template0 11562 |