On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 17:50 +0200, Guillaume Smet wrote:
>
>> I think it's a step forward, maybe not sufficient for you but I prefer
>> the situation now than before. It's safer because of the principle of
>> least surprise: I'm pretty sure a lot of people didn't even think that
>> the last WAL file was systematically missing.
>
> If I hadn't spoken out, I think you would have assumed you were safe and
> so would everybody else. Time is saved only if you perform the step
> manually - if time saving was your objective you should have been using
> a script in the first place. If you're using a script, carry on using
> it: nothing has changed, you still need to check.
You might think that but I won't have. I will still monitor my log
files carefully and check the last WAL file is received and treated on
the slave as I currently do.
I prefer checking it visually than using a script.
At least, now, I have a chance to have it working without a manual intervention.
> It's good you submitted a patch, I have no problem there, BTW, but
> applying a patch during beta, should either fix the problem or not be
> applied at all.
Well, I don't think we'll agree on that. Anyway, have a nice day :).
--
Guillaume
