On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/2014 11:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>> At least for master, we should consider changing the way the archiving
>> works so that we only archive WAL that was generated in the same server.
>> I.e. we should never try to archive WAL files belonging to another
>> timeline.
>>
>> I just remembered that we discussed a different problem related to this
>> some time ago, at
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131212.110002.204892575.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp.
>> The conclusion of that was that at promotion, we should not archive the
>> last, partial, segment from the old timeline.
>
>
> So, this is what I came up with for master. Does anyone see a problem with
> it?
Thinking long-term, this is a solid approach, so +1 for it. I just
tested the patch and the extra segment files do not show up anymore.
Patch looks good as well.
--
Michael
