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.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
