Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 11:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > I've been looking at the open item which belongs with this doc:
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/backup-incremental-updated.html
>
> I'm back from holidays today, so will begin looking at this and r
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 11:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I've been looking at the open item which belongs with this doc:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/backup-incremental-updated.html
I'm back from holidays today, so will begin looking at this and related
open-ish items.
--
Simo
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Again, given that this is a method which is (a) fairly minority-need,
> and (b) not at all tested in the field, I do not think it belongs in the
> main docs. Let's put it on the wiki and blog about it, and AFTER we've
> collected bug reports a
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 8/24/10 12:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Marko Tiikkaja writes:
>>> Is this method not reliable then? Can something go wrong even if the
>>> user does exactly what the documentation says?
>>
>> It is not. This whole discussion started from so
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 13:44 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 8/24/10 12:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Marko Tiikkaja writes:
> >> Is this method not reliable then? Can something go wrong even if the
> >> user does exactly what the documentation says?
> >
> > It is not. This whole discussion started
On 8/24/10 12:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja writes:
>> Is this method not reliable then? Can something go wrong even if the
>> user does exactly what the documentation says?
>
> It is not. This whole discussion started from somebody reporting that
> it didn't work.
Again, given that
Marko Tiikkaja writes:
> Is this method not reliable then? Can something go wrong even if the
> user does exactly what the documentation says?
It is not. This whole discussion started from somebody reporting that
it didn't work.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-ha
On 2010-08-24 9:04 PM +0300, Josh Berkus wrote:
... and my viewpoint is that the procedure described should be *cut*
from the official docs and put on the Wiki, with warnings. It's simply
far too hackish and dependant on DBA understanding of PostgreSQL
internals to belong in the main docs.
In 9
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I've been looking at the open item which belongs with this doc:
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/backup-incremental-updated.html
> >
> > ... and my viewpoint is that the procedure described should be *cut*
> > from the o
Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> I've been looking at the open item which belongs with this doc:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/backup-incremental-updated.html
>
> ... and my viewpoint is that the procedure described should be *cut*
> from the official docs and put on the Wiki, with
All,
I've been looking at the open item which belongs with this doc:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/backup-incremental-updated.html
... and my viewpoint is that the procedure described should be *cut*
from the official docs and put on the Wiki, with warnings. It's simply
far too hack
11 matches
Mail list logo
