On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 08:20:02AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> One thing I would like to ask is that why you think walreceiver is more > >> appropriate for writing XLOG_END_OF_RECOVERY record than startup > >> process. I was thinking the opposite, because if we do so, we might be > >> able to skip the end-of-recovery checkpoint even in file-based log-shipping > >> case. > > > > Right now, WALReceiver has one code path/use case. > > > > Startup has so many, its much harder to know whether we'll screw up one of > > them. > > > > If we can add it in either place then I choose the simplest, most > > relevant place. If the code is the same, we can move it around later. > > > > Let me write the code and then we can think some more. > > Are we still considering trying to do this for 9.2? Seems it's been > over a month without a new patch, and it's not entirely clear that we > know what the design should be.
Did this get completed? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
