On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:36:09AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> In short, it seems really to me that we should reject the approach as
> proposed, and replace it with something that prevents the fetching of
> any WAL segments from the source server. I think that we could consider
> as well removi
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 07:38:37AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Michael, all,
>
> * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:43:51PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> * chenhj (chjis...@163.com) wrote:
At 2018-01-23 09:56:48, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
Michael, all,
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:43:51PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * chenhj (chjis...@163.com) wrote:
> >> At 2018-01-23 09:56:48, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
> >>> I've only read through the thread to try and understand what's going
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:43:51PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * chenhj (chjis...@163.com) wrote:
>> At 2018-01-23 09:56:48, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
>>> I've only read through the thread to try and understand what's going on
>>> and the first thing that comes to mind is that you're changing
>>> p
Greetings,
* chenhj (chjis...@163.com) wrote:
>
> At 2018-01-23 09:56:48, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
> >I've only read through the thread to try and understand what's going on
> >and the first thing that comes to mind is that you're changing
> >pg_rewind to not remove the WAL from before the diverge
At 2018-01-23 09:56:48, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
>
>I've only read through the thread to try and understand what's going on
>and the first thing that comes to mind is that you're changing
>pg_rewind to not remove the WAL from before the divergence (split)
>point, but I'm not sure why. As noted, t
Greetings!
* chenhj (chjis...@163.com) wrote:
> Rebased and removed the whitespace.
Thanks for working on this, I agree that it seems like a pretty cool
optimization for pg_rewind.
I've only read through the thread to try and understand what's going on
and the first thing that comes to mind is
At 2017-12-01 12:27:09, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:20 AM, chenhj wrote:
>> I had filled the authors field of this patch in commitfest, and will rebase
>> this patch if needed. Thank you for your help!
>
>The documentation of the patch needs a rebase, so I am moving it to
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:20 AM, chenhj wrote:
> I had filled the authors field of this patch in commitfest, and will rebase
> this patch if needed. Thank you for your help!
The documentation of the patch needs a rebase, so I am moving it to
next CF with "waiting on author" as status.
$ git diff
