Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Randy Isbell <jisb...@cisco.com> wrote: > > An inconsistency exists between the segment name reported by > > pg_stop_backup() and the actual WAL file name. > > > > START WAL LOCATION: 10/FE1E2BAC (file 0000000200000010000000FE) > > STOP WAL LOCATION: 10/FF000000 (file 0000000200000010000000FF)
> But it was rejected because its change might break the existing app. It might break existing applications if it returns "FE" instead of "FF", but never-used filename surprises users. (IMO, the existing apps probably crash if "FF" returned, i.e, 1/256 of the time.) Should it return the *next* reasonable log filename instead of "FF"? For example, 000000020000002000000000 for the above case. Regards, --- Takahiro Itagaki 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
