On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 08:56 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
Yep, just working on it now. > Aside from the > fact that the restriction seems fairly arbitrary in any event, I'm > unexcited about back-patching a WAL format change. Agreed, but just in case we need to in the future, we can use the XLOG Info record type for such problems. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers