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? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
