Re: pg_xlogdump follow into the future - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: pg_xlogdump follow into the future
Date
Msg-id CABUevEwgbfhcN_r3u7qKMoVxVRZLjD3sO3U935KA1VWODWqwDg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_xlogdump follow into the future  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: pg_xlogdump follow into the future  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2016-07-14 13:46:23 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Currently, if you run pg_xlogdump with -f, you have to specify an end
> position in an existing file, or if you don't it will only follow until the
> end of the current file.

That's because specifying a file explicitly says that you only want to
look at that file, specifying two files that you want the range
inclusively between the two files.  -f works if you just use -s.

Hmm. It does now. I'm *sure* it didn't when I was testing it. It must've been something else that was broken at that point :)

 
> I'd appreciate a review of that by someone who's done more work on the xlog
> stuff, but it seems trivial to me. Not sure I can argue it's a bugfix
> though, since the usecase simply did not work...

I'd say it's working as intended, and you want to change that
intent. That's fair, but I'd not call it a bug, and I'd say it's not
really 9.6 material.

Based on that, I agree that it's working as intended.

And definitely that it's not 9.6 material.

I'll stick it on the CF page so I don't forget about it.


--

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: AMatveev@bitec.ru
Date:
Subject: Re: One process per session lack of sharing
Next
From: Dave Cramer
Date:
Subject: Re: One process per session lack of sharing