On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 08:20:02AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> One thing I would like to ask is that why you think walreceiver is more
> >> appropriate for writing XLOG_END_OF_RECOVERY record than startup
> >> process. I was thinking the opposite, because if we do so, we might be
> >> able to skip the end-of-recovery checkpoint even in file-based log-shipping
> >> case.
> >
> > Right now, WALReceiver has one code path/use case.
> >
> > Startup has so many, its much harder to know whether we'll screw up one of them.
> >
> > If we can add it in either place then I choose the simplest, most
> > relevant place. If the code is the same, we can move it around later.
> >
> > Let me write the code and then we can think some more.
>
> Are we still considering trying to do this for 9.2? Seems it's been
> over a month without a new patch, and it's not entirely clear that we
> know what the design should be.
Did this get completed?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +