On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> One thing I would like to ask is that why you think walreceiver is more
>> appropriate for writing XLOG_END_OF_RECOVERY record than startup
>> process. I was thinking the opposite, because if we do so, we might be
>> able to skip the end-of-recovery checkpoint even in file-based log-shipping
>> case.
>
> Right now, WALReceiver has one code path/use case.
>
> Startup has so many, its much harder to know whether we'll screw up one of them.
>
> If we can add it in either place then I choose the simplest, most
> relevant place. If the code is the same, we can move it around later.
>
> Let me write the code and then we can think some more.
Are we still considering trying to do this for 9.2? Seems it's been
over a month without a new patch, and it's not entirely clear that we
know what the design should be.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
