Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Some actions aren't even transactional, such as DROP DATABASE, amongst >> >> Good point. We'd probably need to add a timestamp to the drop >> database record, as that's a case that people would likely want to >> defend against with this feature. > > This means that recovery_target_* code would also need to deal with > DROP DATABASE case. >
there is no problem if you use "restore point" names... but of course you lose flexibility (ie: you can't restore to 5 minutes before now) mmm... a lazy idea: can't we just create a restore point wal record *before* we actually drop the database? then we won't need to modify logic about recovery_target_* (if it is only DROP DATABASE maybe that's enough about complicating code) and we can provide that protection since 9.1 -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Professional PostgreSQL Soporte 24x7, desarrollo, capacitación y servicios -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
