On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> >> I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the implementation for
>> >> 10, and as such is "open for fixing". However, it's not a very critical bug
>> >> so I doubt it should be a release blocker, but if someone wants to work on a
>> >> fix I think we should commit it.
>> >
>> > I agree with you. I'd like to hear opinions from other hackers as well.
>>
>> It's preferable to make it work. If it's not easily possible, then we
>> should prohibit it.
>>
>> Comments from Stephen (original committer)?
>
> I agree that it'd be preferable to make it work, but I'm not sure I can
> commit to having it done in short order. I'm happy to work to prohibit
> it, but if someone has a few spare cycles to make it actually work,
> that'd be great.
Fixing the limitation instead of prohibiting it looks like a better
way of doing things to me. It would be hard to explain to users why
the implementation does not consider archive_mode = always. Blocking
it is just four lines of code, still that feels wrong.
> In short, I agree with Magnus and feel like I'm more-or-less in the same
> boat as he is (though slightly jealous as that's not actually physically
> the case, for I hear he has a rather nice boat...).
That means a PG-EU in Sweden at some point?!
--
Michael