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


Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to