On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
>> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>>> On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> >> I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the implementation 
>>> >> for
>>> >> 10, and as such is "open for fixing". However, it's not a very critical 
>>> >> bug
>>> >> so I doubt it should be a release blocker, but if someone wants to work 
>>> >> on a
>>> >> fix I think we should commit it.
>>> >
>>> > I agree with you. I'd like to hear opinions from other hackers as well.
>>> It's preferable to make it work.  If it's not easily possible, then we
>>> should prohibit it.
>>> Comments from Stephen (original committer)?
>> I agree that it'd be preferable to make it work, but I'm not sure I can
>> commit to having it done in short order.  I'm happy to work to prohibit
>> it, but if someone has a few spare cycles to make it actually work,
>> that'd be great.
> Fixing the limitation instead of prohibiting it looks like a better
> way of doing things to me. It would be hard to explain to users why
> the implementation does not consider archive_mode = always. Blocking
> it is just four lines of code, still that feels wrong.

I feel that since we cannot switch the WAL forcibly on the standby
server we need to find a new way to do so. I'm not sure but it might
be a hard work and be late for PG10. Or you meant that you have a idea
for this?


Masahiko Sawada
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