On 21.02.2013 02:59, Daniel Farina wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Simon Riggs<simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 15 February 2013 17:07, Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Unfortunately in HEAD, xxx.done file is not created when restoring
>>>> archived
>>>> file because of absence of the patch. We need to implement that first.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah yeah, that thing again..
>>> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/50DF5BA7.6070200@vmware.com) I'm going
>>> to forward-port that patch now, before it's forgotten again. It's not clear
>>> to me what the holdup was on this, but whatever the bigger patch we've been
>>> waiting for is, it can just as well be done on top of the forward-port.
>>
>> Agreed. I wouldn't wait for a better version now.
>
> Related to this, how is this going to affect point releases, and are
> there any lingering doubts about the mechanism of the fix?
Are you talking about the patch to avoid restored WAL segments from
being re-archived (commit 6f4b8a4f4f7a2d683ff79ab59d3693714b965e3d), or
the bug that that unarchived WALs were deleted after crash (commit
b5ec56f664fa20d80fe752de494ec96362eff520)? The former was included in
9.2.0 already, and the latter will be included in the next point release.
I have no lingering doubts about this. There was some plans to do bigger
changes for the re-archiving issue
(6f4b8a4f4f7a2d683ff79ab59d3693714b965e3d), which is why it was
initially left out from master. But that didn't happen, and I believe
everyone is happy with the current state of things.
> This is
> quite serious given my reliance on archiving, so unless the thinking
> for point releases is 'real soon' I must backpatch and release it on
> my own accord until then.
I don't know what the release schedule is. I take that to be a request
to put out a new minor release ASAP.
- Heikki
