On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> For 9.4, clearly yes, this would change the semantic of recovery and >> this is not something wise to do at the end of a development cycle. >> For 9.5 though, this is a different story. It clearly depends on if >> this is though as useful enough to change how recovery fetches WAL >> files (in this case by scanning existing repslots). There are other >> things to consider as well like for example: do we reset the >> restart_lsn of a repslot if needed WAL files are not here anymore or >> abort recovery? I haven't worked much with repslots though... > Coming back to that, I am still wondering if for the time being it > would not be better to add in pg_basebackup documentation that > replication slot information is not added in a backup, per se the > patch attached.
Not sure if this is exactly the right way to do it, but I agree that something along those lines is a good idea. I also think, maybe even importantly, that we should probably document that people using file-copy based hot backups should strongly consider removing the replication slots by hand before using the backup. -- 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
