Hello, At Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:41:27 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in <cab7npqsetnfjhgab+te2m68vc_3bwbsepe+dcmb8xnh0uyw...@mail.gmail.com> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > So, all my original concern were cleared. > > Cool. Perhaps this could be marked as ready for committer then?
^^; > > The last one is > > resetting by a checkpointer restart.. I'd like to remove that if > > Andres agrees. > > Could you clarify this point? v18 makes sure that the last segment > switch stays in shared memory so as we could still skip the activity > of archive_timeout correctly. I don't doubt that it works. (I don't comment on the comment:) My concern is complexity. I don't think we wish to save almost no harm behavior caused by a thing rarely happens. But, if you and others on this thread don't mind the complexity, It's not worth asserting myself more. So, after a day waiting, I'll mark this as ready for committer again. reagards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers