On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 03:02, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I talked to Tom on the phone today and and I think we have a procedure
> for doing backup/restore in a fairly foolproof way.
>
> As outlined below, we need to record the start/stop and checkpoint WAL
> file names and offsets, and somehow pass those on to restore. I think
> any system that requires users to link those values together is going
> to cause confusion and be error-prone.
>
Unfortunately, it seems clear that many of my posts have not been read,
nor has anyone here actually tried to use the patch. Everybody's views
on what constitutes error-prone might well differ then.
Speculation about additional requirements is just great, but please
don't assume that I have infinite resources to apply to these problems.
Documentation has still to be written.
For a long time now, I've been adding "one last feature" to what is
there, but we're still no nearer to anybody inspecting the patch or
committing it.
There is building consensus on other threads that PITR should not even
be included in the release (3 tentative votes). This latest request
feels more like the necessary excuse to take the decision to pull PITR.
I would much rather that we took the brave decision and pull it NOW,
rather than have me work like crazy to chase this release.
:(
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
