From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Infrastructure changes for recovery
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:18:16 -0400
Message-ID: <2792.1220897896@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1220896910.3913.242.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
References: <1218109459.4549.423.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
<1220213074.4371.173.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
<1905.1220895241@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1220896910.3913.242.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 13:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, I dunno, it seems like that might be a bad choice. Are you sure
>> it's not cleaner to just use the regular checkpoint code?
> When I tried to write it, it just looked to my eyes like every single
> line had a caveat which looked ugly and multiplied the testing. You're
> the code dude, always happy to structure things as you suggest. If
> you're sure, that is.
No, was just wondering if the other way would be better. If you're
sure not, that's fine.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, simon@2ndQuadrant.com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Infrastructure changes for recovery
In-Reply-To: <2792.1220897896@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox