On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Michael Paquier
>>>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Michael Paquier
>>>>>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Why only for back-branches? Do you have better solution for head?
>>>
>>> Yes, I mentioned an idea upthread to set up the minimum recovery point
>>> saved in the backup to the last replayed LSN. Though that's not
>>> acceptable for 9.6 as this requires changing the output of
>>> pg_stop_backup() with a new field containing the bytes of pg_control.
>>> I am not sure how others feel about that,
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I think that is totally different angle to fix this issue, so
>> don't you think it is better to start a separate thread to discuss
>> about it for 10.0 and mark this patch as ready for committer.
>
> I'd like to tackle this problem in 10.0, but that will strongly depend
> on how my patches move on in CF1 and CF2.
By the way, thank you for taking the time to provide input. I think
we're in good shape here now.
--
Michael