On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 08:20:02AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Did this get completed?
No, not yet.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
