Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E80632E5F for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 20:07:33 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09013-09 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:07:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp (serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp [222.151.198.100]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6040C632651 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 20:07:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D541248205; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:07:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from serv1.oss.ntt.co.jp (serv1.oss.ntt.co.jp [172.19.0.2]) by serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2362481F7; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:07:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from [172.17.1.163] (unknown [172.17.1.163]) by serv1.oss.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DFC11C097; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:07:18 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:08:35 +0900 From: Takahiro Itagaki To: Fujii Masao Subject: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4566: pg_stop_backup() reports incorrect STOP WAL LOCATION Cc: PostgreSQL-development In-Reply-To: <3f0b79eb1002032328s46af0dcer64692245d3d94210@mail.gmail.com> References: <200812051441.mB5EfG1M007309@wwwmaster.postgresql.org> <3f0b79eb1002032328s46af0dcer64692245d3d94210@mail.gmail.com> Message-Id: <20100205090834.9BE7.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.52 [ja] X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.449 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201002/335 X-Sequence-Number: 156678 Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Randy Isbell wrote: > > An inconsistency exists between the segment name reported by > > pg_stop_backup() and the actual WAL file name. > > > > START WAL LOCATION: 10/FE1E2BAC (file 0000000200000010000000FE) > > STOP WAL LOCATION: 10/FF000000 (file 0000000200000010000000FF) > But it was rejected because its change might break the existing app. It might break existing applications if it returns "FE" instead of "FF", but never-used filename surprises users. (IMO, the existing apps probably crash if "FF" returned, i.e, 1/256 of the time.) Should it return the *next* reasonable log filename instead of "FF"? For example, 000000020000002000000000 for the above case. Regards, --- Takahiro Itagaki NTT Open Source Software Center