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.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
