On 09/07/2010 04:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> In theory, that's true, but if we do that, then there's an even bigger
> problem: the slave might have replayed WAL ahead of the master
> location; therefore the slave is now corrupt and a new base backup
> must be taken.
The slave isn't corrupt. It would suffice to "late abort" committed
transactions the master doesn't know about.
However, I realize that undoing of WAL isn't something that's
implemented (nor planned). So it's probably easier to forward the master
in such a case.
> Yeah, I hope we'll get there eventually.
Understood. Thanks.
Markus Wanner
