Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup

On 10/24/2013 11:12 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 24.10.2013 20:39, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 10/24/2013 04:15 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>>> If we do what you are suggesting, it seems like a single line patch
>>> to me.
>>> In XLogSaveBufferForHint(), we probably need to look at this
>>> additional GUC
>>> to decide whether or not to backup the block.
>>
>> Wait, what?  Why are we having an additional GUC?
>>
>> I'm opposed to the idea of having a GUC to enable failback.  When would
>> anyone using replication ever want to disable that?
> 
> For example, if you're not replicating for high availability purposes,
> but to keep a reporting standby up-to-date.

What kind of overhead are we talking about here?  You probably said, but
I've had a mail client meltdown and lost a lot of my -hackers emails.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com