On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 20:21, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On ons, 2011-04-27 at 19:17 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 18:55, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> > On tis, 2011-03-29 at 23:48 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> >> The line I marked in pg_basebackup.c might be an actual problem: It
>> >> goes through a whole lot to figure out the timeline and then doesn't
>> >> do anything with it.
>> >
>> > This hasn't been addressed yet. It doesn't manifest itself as an actual
>> > problem, but it looks as though someone had intended something in that
>> > code and the code doesn't do that.
>>
>> Do you have a ref to the actual problem? The subject change killed my
>> threading, the email was trimmed to not include the actual problem,
>> and it appears not to be listed on the open items list... ;)
>
> In BaseBackup(), the variable timeline is assigned in a somewhat
> elaborate fashion, but then the result is not used for anything.
Ah, I see it.
What happened there is I accidentally included it when I split my
patches apart. It's required in the "stream WAL in parallel to the
base backup to decrease requirements on wal_keep_segmtents". But that
patch was postponed since there were still bugs in it, and it wasn't
entirely feature-complete, and we were pretty far past feature-freeze.
So it's not needed in 9.1. I'll rip it out and move it over to the
patch once it's ready to go for 9.2.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/