Re: time-delayed standbys
От | Jaime Casanova |
---|---|
Тема | Re: time-delayed standbys |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87fwmqy8tb.fsf@casanova1.SEINGALT обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: time-delayed standbys (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Some actions aren't even transactional, such as DROP DATABASE, amongst >> >> Good point. We'd probably need to add a timestamp to the drop >> database record, as that's a case that people would likely want to >> defend against with this feature. > > This means that recovery_target_* code would also need to deal with > DROP DATABASE case. > there is no problem if you use "restore point" names... but of course you lose flexibility (ie: you can't restore to 5 minutes before now) mmm... a lazy idea: can't we just create a restore point wal record *before* we actually drop the database? then we won't need to modify logic about recovery_target_* (if it is only DROP DATABASE maybe that's enough about complicating code) and we can provide that protection since 9.1 -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Professional PostgreSQL Soporte 24x7, desarrollo, capacitación y servicios
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: