On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 03:11:40PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> Thanks for the update. The patch looks good to me.
Yes, you're right. We want the opposite to happen here. I've applied
the patch on HEAD.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 12:11, Artur Zakirov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 09:41, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > You seem right, nice catch. Also, this change makes the check in
> >
> > snprintf(summarydir, sizeof(summarydir), "%s/%s/summaries",
> > basedir,
>
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 09:41, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> You seem right, nice catch. Also, this change makes the check in
>
> snprintf(summarydir, sizeof(summarydir), "%s/%s/summaries",
> basedir,
> PQserverVersion(conn) < MINIMUM_VERSION_FOR_PG
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 01:11:27 +0100
Artur Zakirov wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> during reading the source code of new incremental backup functionality
> I noticed that the following condition can by unintentional:
>
> /*
> * For newer server versions, likewise create pg_wal/summaries
> *
Hi,
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 03:11, Artur Zakirov wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> during reading the source code of new incremental backup functionality
> I noticed that the following condition can by unintentional:
>
> /*
> * For newer server versions, likewise create pg_wal/summaries
> */
