On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > If you feel we have moved forwards, that's good, but since no part of > the *safe* maintenance procedure has changed, I don't see that myself. > Only the unsafe way of doing it got faster.
I disagree with you. The situation was: - you stop the master; - everything seems to be OK in the log files (archiving and so on); - it's broken anyway as you don't have the last log file; - you have to copy the last log file manually. - you can start the slave. It is now: - you stop the master; - if everything is OK in the log files, the last log file has been archived (and yes I check it manually too) and it's done. If not (and it's the exception, not the rule) I have to copy manually the missing WAL files; - you can start the slave. I think it's a step forward, maybe not sufficient for you but I prefer the situation now than before. It's safer because of the principle of least surprise: I'm pretty sure a lot of people didn't even think that the last WAL file was systematically missing. As Heikki stated it, if you have concrete proposals of how we can fix the other corner cases, we're all ears. Considering my current level of knowledge, that's all I can do by myself. IMHO, that's something that needs to be treated in the massive replication work planned for 8.5. -- Guillaume -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers