On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>> Actually, my previous email was all nonsense, wasn't it? If we don't
>>>> reach the consistency point, we can't enter normal running anyway -
>>>> shut down is the only option no matter what.
>>>
>>> Presumably you mean that the way its currently coded is the way it should stay?
>>
>> Uh, maybe, but it's not obvious to me that it actually is coded that
>> way. I don't see any safeguard that prevents recovery from pausing
>> before consistency is released. Is there one? Where?
>
> Oh, sorry for my poor explanation.
>
> My explanation is true if we'll just change the code so that it ignores
> pause_at_recovery_target until recovery reaches the consistency point.
> Simon changed the code in that way yesterday.
Yep, I think we're good on this one now.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
