On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 16:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 16:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I thought the latest conclusion was that changing the behavior of
> >> pg_standby itself wouldn't address the problem anyway, and that what we
> >> need is just a docs patch recommending that people use safe copying
> >> methods in their scripts that copy to the archive area?
> > Plus the rest of this patch, which is really very simple.
> Why? AFAICT the patch is just a kluge that adds user-visible complexity
> without providing a solution that's actually sure to work.
First, I'm not the one objecting to the current behaviour.
Currently, there is a wait in there that can be removed if you use a
copy utility that sets size after it does a copy. So we agreed to make
it optional (at PGCon).
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: