On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:12 PM Paul Guo <gu...@vmware.com> wrote: > On 2021/3/27, 10:23 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > Hmm, can you post a rebased set, where the points under discussion > > are marked in XXX comments explaining what the issue is? This thread > is > > long and old ago that it's pretty hard to navigate the whole thing in > > order to find out exactly what is being questioned. > > OK. Attached are the rebased version that includes the change I discussed > in my previous reply. Also added POD documentation change for > RecursiveCopy, > and modified the patch to use the backup_options introduced in > 081876d75ea15c3bd2ee5ba64a794fd8ea46d794 for tablespace mapping. > > > I think 0004 can be pushed without further ado, since it's a clear and > > simple fix. 0001 needs a comment about the new parameter in > > RecursiveCopy's POD documentation. > > Yeah, 0004 is no any risky. One concern seemed to be the compatibility of > some > WAL dump/analysis tools(?). I have no idea about this. But if we do not > backport > 0004 we do not seem to need to worry about this. > > > As I understand, this is a backpatchable bug-fix. > > Yes. > > Thanks. > > Patch does not apply successfully, http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_33_2161.log
Can you please rebase the patch. -- Ibrar Ahmed
