Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYYdOMRVNtJKn6Uvs=r5SqWBo4wB4yBnwmozjQ9wJWNWQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standbyserver
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > * Noah Misch (noah@leadboat.com) wrote: >> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send >> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status >> update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: > > Based on the ongoing discussion, this is really looking like it's > actually a fix that needs to be back-patched to 9.6 rather than a PG10 > open item. I don't have any issue with keeping it as an open item > though, just mentioning it. I'll provide another status update on or > before Monday, July 31st. > > I'll get to work on the back-patch and try to draft up something to go > into the release notes for 9.6.4. Whether this is going to be back-patched or not, you should do something about it quickly, because we're wrapping a new beta and a full set of back-branch releases next week. I'm personally hoping that what follows beta3 will be rc1, but if we have too much churn after beta3 we'll end up with a beta4, which could end up slipping the whole release cycle. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: