On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 20:38 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> > >> > That looks contrary to the documented behavior. Shouldn't i get a forced >> > disconnect on this connection instead? >> >> Probably yes. To do that, ISTM that we should make ALTER DATABASE .. RENAME >> issue something like XLOG_DBASE_RENAME record, and make the standby server >> call ResolveRecoveryConflictWithDatabase() when that record is applied. >> Simon? > > Certainly contrary to documented behaviour, thanks for the report. > > Question: do we want that documented behaviour, or should we leave it as > is? Probably want to throw a conflict, but it seems worth asking, since > I know for certain I just made up the documented behaviour. > > I'll patch if we agree its required.
Per comments from Josh, Bernd, and myself upthread, I think the consensus is that we should patch the documentation. Aside from the fact that the restriction seems fairly arbitrary in any event, I'm unexcited about back-patching a WAL format change. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
