Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Randy Isbell <jisbell@cisco.com> wrote:
> > An inconsistency exists between the segment name reported by
> > pg_stop_backup() and the actual WAL file name.
> >
> > START WAL LOCATION: 10/FE1E2BAC (file 0000000200000010000000FE)
> > STOP WAL LOCATION: 10/FF000000 (file 0000000200000010000000FF)
> But it was rejected because its change might break the existing app.
It might break existing applications if it returns "FE" instead of "FF",
but never-used filename surprises users. (IMO, the existing apps probably
crash if "FF" returned, i.e, 1/256 of the time.)
Should it return the *next* reasonable log filename instead of "FF"?
For example, 000000020000002000000000 for the above case.
Regards,
---
Takahiro Itagaki
NTT Open Source Software Center
