On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> Fujii, all,
>
> * Fujii Masao (masao.fujii@gmail.com) wrote:
>> That logic exists because we'd like to check that newly-received WAL
>> data is consistent with previous one by validating the header of new
>> WAL file. So since we need the header of new WAL file, we retreat the
>> replication starting location to the beginning of the WAL file when
>> reconnecting to the primary.
>
> Thanks for that explanation, but I can't help but wonder why it doesn't
> make more sense to introduce a new variable to track the value you want
> rather than reusing an existing one and then adding a variable to
> represent what the old variable was already doing.
+1.
It seems like there may be some more significant changes in this area
needed; however, for now I think the best fix is the one with the
least chance of breaking anything.
> Also, you really should reformat the docs properly when you change them,
> rather than leaving the lines ragged..
It's OK to leave them a little ragged, I think. It eases back-patching.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company