On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Okay. Here is an updated patch incorporating those comments.
>
> Committed with a little wordsmithing on the documentation.
Thanks all.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mai
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Okay. Here is an updated patch incorporating those comments.
Committed with a little wordsmithing on the documentation.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hacke
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> This sentence is actually wrong, a feedback message is never sent with
>>> the feedback message.
>>
>> Eh?
>
> "A fee
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> This sentence is actually wrong, a feedback message is never sent with
>> the feedback message.
>
> Eh?
"A feedback message is never sent depending on the status interval".
> I t
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> This sentence is actually wrong, a feedback message is never sent with
> the feedback message.
Eh?
I think this looks basically fine, though I'd omit the short option
for it. There are only so many letters in the alphabet, so let's not
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
> +
> +By default, pg_receivewal flushes a WAL segment's
> +contents each time a feedback message is sent to the server depending
> +on the interval of time defined by
> +--status-interval.
> IMHO, it's ok
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After thinking a bit on the subject, I have decided to submit a patch
> to do $subject. This makes pg_receivewal more consistent with
> pg_basebackup. This option is mainly useful for testing, something
> that becomes way more d