Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI.

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Grigory Smolkin
Тема Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI.
Дата
Msg-id c3f1c0f6-5e57-9b47-7dff-a21e760920b8@postgrespro.ru
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на BUG #16159: recovery requests WALs for the next timelines before timeline switch LSN has been reached  (PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>)
Список pgsql-bugs

I`ve bumped into this issue recently:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/dd6690b0-ec03-6b3c-6fac-c963f91f87a7%40postgrespro.ru


On 4/6/20 8:43 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:

The patch looks good to me. Attached is the updated version of the patch.
I updated only comments.

Barring any objection, I will commit this patch.

I`ve been running tests on your patch. So far so good.

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 12:15:00PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
I understood the situation and am fine to back-patch that. But I'm not sure
if it's fair to do that. Maybe we need to hear more opinions about this?
OTOH, feature freeze for v13 is today, so what about committing the patch
in v13 at first, and then doing the back-patch after hearing opinions and
receiving many +1?

+1 to back-patching it.

-- 
Grigory Smolkin
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: BUG #16325: Assert failure on partitioning by int for a textvalue with a collation
Следующее
От: Euler Taveira
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [bug] Wrong bool value parameter