Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqR+VOUvOTwk5kxb2Tn7-JXXdtq3AkTcwjEdEL_tdBXp7g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> Simple patch, applies and makes cleanly, does what it says and says what it does.
>
> If a transaction holding locks aborts on an otherwise idle server, perhaps it will take a very long time for a
log-shippingstandby to realize this.  But I have hard time believing that anyone who cares about that would be using
log-shipping(rather than streaming) anyway. 
>
> Marking it ready for committer.
>
> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer

Thanks! That was deadly fast.

Just wondering: shouldn't we keep the discussion around this patch on
-bugs instead? Not saying you are wrong, Jeff, I am just not sure what
would be the best practice regarding patches related to bugs. I would
think that it is at least necessary to keep the person who reported
the bug in CC to let him know the progress though.
--
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Why not to use 'pg_ctl start -D ../data' to register posgtresql windows service
Next
From: YuanyuanLiu
Date:
Subject: Re: Why not to use 'pg_ctl start -D ../data' to register posgtresql windows service