Re: gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEzp4a_wYuT_YKsmOPONENAy5aHyE-06RutYcPO5Twwa=w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
-- On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de> wrote:Hi,
Am Montag, den 27.02.2017, 16:20 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Is there an argument for back-patching this?
>
>
> Seems you were typing that at the same time as we did.
>
>
> I'm considering it, but not swayed in either direction. Should I take
> your comment as a vote that we should back-patch it?
I've checked back into this thread, and there seems to be a +1 from Tom
and a +(0.5-1) from Simon for backpatching, and no obvious -1s. Did you
decide against it in the end, or is this still an open item?No, I plan to work on it, so it's still an open item. I've been backlogged with other things, but I will try to get too it soon.(This also includes considering Jeff's note)
I've applied a backpatch to 9.4. Prior to that pretty much the entire patch is a conflict, so it would need a full rewrite.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: