Re: Request for vote to move forward with recovery.conf overhaul
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Request for vote to move forward with recovery.conf overhaul |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqRhwrYAR9V4YcxrVmOZ5y=8G-y99b=ucxg1F55MKPjAOA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Request for vote to move forward with recovery.conf overhaul (Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Request for vote to move forward with recovery.conf overhaul
Re: Request for vote to move forward with recovery.conf overhaul |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com> wrote:
-- +1On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> There has been discussion in the past of removing or significantly
> changing the way streaming replication/point-in-time-recovery (PITR) is
> setup in Postgres. Currently the file recovery.conf is used, but that
> was designed for PITR and does not serve streaming replication well.
>
> This all should have been overhauled when streaming replication was
> added in 2010 in Postgres 9.0. However, time constraints and concern
> about backward compatibility has hampered this overhaul.
>
> At this point, backward compatibility seems to be hampering our ability
> to move forward. I would like a vote that supports creation of a new
> method for setting up streaming replication/point-in-time-recovery,
> where backward compatibility is considered only where it is minimally
> invasive.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
I seemed to have lost track of the thread that this spawned out of. Is
there a coherent plan for a way forward at this point? Last I recall
it was Simon's plan vs Bruce's plan. I also seem to recall there was a
patch out there too. I think it's even in the commitfest waiting on
author.
/me searches
Here:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1026
Perhaps we can get the two plans enumerated, vote, and then get a patch out?
I'd really like to see this in 9.3, but not sure if that ship has
sailed for this feature or not.
Yes, that is one of the most important patches in the list, and I could put some effort in it for either review or coding.
It is an 17-month-old-patch, so of course it does not apply on master.
However before taking any actions, I would like to know the following:
- Simon, are you planning to update this patch?
- As we are rushing to finish wrapping up 9.3, do you consider it is too late to begin that?
Thanks,
It is an 17-month-old-patch, so of course it does not apply on master.
However before taking any actions, I would like to know the following:
- Simon, are you planning to update this patch?
- As we are rushing to finish wrapping up 9.3, do you consider it is too late to begin that?
Thanks,
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: