On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Fujii, all, > > * Fujii Masao (masao.fu...@gmail.com) wrote: >> That logic exists because we'd like to check that newly-received WAL >> data is consistent with previous one by validating the header of new >> WAL file. So since we need the header of new WAL file, we retreat the >> replication starting location to the beginning of the WAL file when >> reconnecting to the primary. > > Thanks for that explanation, but I can't help but wonder why it doesn't > make more sense to introduce a new variable to track the value you want > rather than reusing an existing one and then adding a variable to > represent what the old variable was already doing.
+1. It seems like there may be some more significant changes in this area needed; however, for now I think the best fix is the one with the least chance of breaking anything. > Also, you really should reformat the docs properly when you change them, > rather than leaving the lines ragged.. It's OK to leave them a little ragged, I think. It eases back-patching. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
