>On Monday, July 08, 2013 5:16 PM Andres Freund wrote: >>On 2013-07-08 17:10:43 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> On Monday, July 08, 2013 4:26 PM Andres Freund wrote: >>> > On 2013-07-08 16:17:54 +0530, Hari Babu wrote: >>> > > + This utility can also be used to decide whether backup is >>> > required or not when the data page >>> > > + in old-master precedes the last applied LSN in old-standby >>> > (i.e., new-master) at the >>> > > + moment of the failover. >>> > > + </para> >>> > > + </refsect1> >>> > >>> > I don't think this is safe in any interesting set of cases. Am I >>> > missing >>> > something? >>> >>> No, you are not missing anything. It can be only used to find max LSN in >>> database which can avoid further corruption
>>Why is the patch submitted documenting it as a use-case then? I find it >>rather scary if the *patch authors* document a known unsafe use case as >>one of the known use-cases. >I got the problem which can occur with the specified use case. Removed the >wrong use case specified above. >Thanks for the review, please find the updated patch attached in the mail. Patch is not getting compiled on Windows, I had made following changes: a. updated the patch for resolving Windows build b. few documentation changes in (pg_resetxlog.sgml) for spelling mistake and minor line change c. corrected year for Copyright in file pg_computemaxlsn.c With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
pg_computemaxlsn_v11.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
