On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For 9.4, clearly yes, this would change the semantic of recovery and
> this is not something wise to do at the end of a development cycle.
> For 9.5 though, this is a different story. It clearly depends on if
> this is though as useful enough to change how recovery fetches WAL
> files (in this case by scanning existing repslots). There are other
> things to consider as well like for example: do we reset the
> restart_lsn of a repslot if needed WAL files are not here anymore or
> abort recovery? I haven't worked much with repslots though...
Coming back to that, I am still wondering if for the time being it
would not be better to add in pg_basebackup documentation that
replication slot information is not added in a backup, per se the
patch attached.
Regards,
--
Michael
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_basebackup.sgml
b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_basebackup.sgml
index 6ce0c8c..4305788 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_basebackup.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_basebackup.sgml
@@ -590,6 +590,13 @@ PostgreSQL documentation
or an older major version, down to 9.1. However, WAL streaming mode (-X
stream) only works with server version 9.3.
</para>
+
+ <para>
+ The backup will not include information about replication slots
+ (see <xref linkend="streaming-replication-slots">) as it is not
+ guaranteed that a node in recovery will have WAL files required for
+ a given slot.
+ </para>
</refsect1>
<refsect1>
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
