Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 18:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The archiver is deliberately designed not to be connected to shared
>>> memory. If you want to change that you'll have to make a very strong
>>> case why we sho
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 18:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The archiver is deliberately designed not to be connected to shared
>> memory. If you want to change that you'll have to make a very strong
>> case why we should give up the safety and security advantag
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 18:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [I have an outstanding question on how to include LWlock support into
> > the archiver, required to flesh out the feature set, and of course
> > assuming these patches being accepted.]
>
> The archiver
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [I have an outstanding question on how to include LWlock support into
> the archiver, required to flesh out the feature set, and of course
> assuming these patches being accepted.]
The archiver is deliberately designed not to be connected to shared
memory.
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 13:05 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> How close do your PITR patches take us to Oracle's "Standby Databases"?
> I'm trying to decide whether it's a "major features" for PR purposes or
> not.
That was pretty much the sweet spot I was aiming at. Many databases
support such func
Simon,
How close do your PITR patches take us to Oracle's "Standby Databases"?
I'm trying to decide whether it's a "major features" for PR purposes or
not.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: ex
Josh Berkus writes:
>> Diogo's xlogviewer stuff should be ready shortly also (1-3 weeks). Since
>> that's a contrib module how do we stand on having that get into 8.2,
>> even though it isn't going to hit the main feature freeze?
> This is why I was asking for status reports on pgsql-students 10
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Simon,
>
> > Diogo's xlogviewer stuff should be ready shortly also (1-3 weeks). Since
> > that's a contrib module how do we stand on having that get into 8.2,
> > even though it isn't going to hit the main feature freeze?
>
> This is why I was asking for status reports on pgs
Simon,
> Diogo's xlogviewer stuff should be ready shortly also (1-3 weeks). Since
> that's a contrib module how do we stand on having that get into 8.2,
> even though it isn't going to hit the main feature freeze?
This is why I was asking for status reports on pgsql-students 10 days ago.
I gue
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 20:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Seems you completed most of the PITR items. That will make great
> > additions for 8.2.
>
> Diogo's xlogviewer stuff should be ready shortly also (1-3 weeks). Since
> that's a contrib module how do we stand on having
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 20:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Seems you completed most of the PITR items. That will make great
> additions for 8.2.
Diogo's xlogviewer stuff should be ready shortly also (1-3 weeks). Since
that's a contrib module how do we stand on having that get into 8.2,
even though
Seems you completed most of the PITR items. That will make great
additions for 8.2.
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
> The restartableRecovery patch introduces the concept of standby_mode,
> where you define in the recovery.conf file
The restartableRecovery patch introduces the concept of standby_mode,
where you define in the recovery.conf file that this server is acting as
a log-shipping target. We can extend that concept to a few other useful
places.
We've discussed a number of times that we can use a script that waits
indef
13 matches
Mail list logo
