Em segunda-feira, 7 de abril de 2014, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Michael Paquier > > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> 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. > > Not sure if this is exactly the right way to do it, but I agree that > something along those lines is a good idea. I also think, maybe even > importantly, that we should probably document that people using > file-copy based hot backups should strongly consider removing the > replication slots by hand before using the backup. > > +1 Fabrízio -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL >> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br >> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com >> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
