At Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:02:11 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote in
<CAB7nPqSsBzhOkCXyBh9_ZGUEnr0HCKRcpC9DMk6VVCGBez1pzA@mail.gmail.com>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >> On 2016-12-22 08:32:56 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>> I plan to commit this later today. Hope I got the reviewers roughly right.
> >>
> >> And pushed. Thanks for the work on this everyone.
> >
> > Cool. Also, +1 for the important/unimportant terminology. I like that.
>
> Thanks for the commit.
Thanks for commiting.
By the way this issue seems beeing in the ToDo list.
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#Point-In-Time_Recovery_.28PITR.29
> Consider avoiding WAL switching via archive_timeout if there
> has been no database activity
> - archive_timeout behavior for no activity
> - Re: archive_timeout behavior for no activity
So I marked it as "done".
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center