Please ignore- seems some old mail of mine got sent waaay late...
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I am not fond of the timeline idea, especially for 7.5. Let's get usage
cases submitted first. I can imagine timelines as causing significant
confusion during restore, which is the last thing we want
I am not fond of the timeline idea, especially for 7.5. Let's get usage
cases submitted first. I can imagine timelines as causing significant
confusion during restore, which is the last thing we want to do.
I think that judgment is exactly backward. *Not* having timelines is
what will cause seri
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think it's really important to get this right the first time, both for
> >> reliability's sake and because we are expecting people to write their
> >> own archiving scripts. If we ch
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it's really important to get this right the first time, both for
>> reliability's sake and because we are expecting people to write their
>> own archiving scripts. If we change the xlog segment naming convention
>> later on, th
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think that judgment is exactly backward. *Not* having timelines is
> >> what will cause serious and possibly fatal mistakes during restore:
> >> people will hand the wrong xlog files to restore and the software
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 05:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think that judgment is exactly backward. *Not* having timelines is
> >> what will cause serious and possibly fatal mistakes during restore:
> >> people will hand the wrong xlog files
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that judgment is exactly backward. *Not* having timelines is
>> what will cause serious and possibly fatal mistakes during restore:
>> people will hand the wrong xlog files to restore and the software will
>> be unable to recog
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > what's not (yet)
> >> - Timelines...though I think they are useful, they may not be critical
>
> > I am not fond of the timeline idea, especially for 7.5. Let's get usage
> > cases submitted first. I can imagi
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> what's not (yet)
>> - Timelines...though I think they are useful, they may not be critical
> I am not fond of the timeline idea, especially for 7.5. Let's get usage
> cases submitted first. I can imagine timelines as causing signif
Simon Riggs wrote:
> New release of patch, at v5_1 ... for serious testing
> what's in
> - Point in Time Recovery now worksplease check carefully
> - additional options in recovery.conf
> (including code contributed to PITR from Klaus Naumann)
>
> what's not (yet)
> - Timelines...though I thi
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 23:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > New release of patch, at v5_1 ... for serious testing
> > what's in
> > - Point in Time Recovery now worksplease check carefully
> > - additional options in recovery.conf
> > (including code contributed to PITR from Kla
Following a suggestion and patch from Klaus Naumann, the recovery.conf
file can now accept comments
No patch supplied at present (anoncvs is down), but here is the
annotated recovery.conf.sample
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
# ---
# PostgreSQL recovery config file
# --
On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 12:53, Klaus Naumann wrote:
> archive_program is provided with a string which contains the target directory.
> That doesn't really make sense.
archive_dest is used for both archive and restore, thats why its set as
a separate parameter.
Thats the rationale...lets see what o
13 matches
Mail list logo
