On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 09:56:03AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Previous patch was incorrect, this was the same v2 as upthread.
> Attached is the correct v3.
For the archive's sake, this version of the patch has been pushed as
6271fce. Thanks Simon for the commit, and David for the review!
--
M
On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 27 November 2017 at 14:06, David Steele wrote:
>>
>>> I have tested and get an error as expected when I munge the backup_label
>>> file:
>>>
>>> FATAL: invalid data in file "backup
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 27 November 2017 at 14:06, David Steele wrote:
>
>> I have tested and get an error as expected when I munge the backup_label
>> file:
>>
>> FATAL: invalid data in file "backup_label"
>> DETAIL: Timeline ID parsed is 2, but expected 1
>>
>
On 27 November 2017 at 14:06, David Steele wrote:
> I have tested and get an error as expected when I munge the backup_label
> file:
>
> FATAL: invalid data in file "backup_label"
> DETAIL: Timeline ID parsed is 2, but expected 1
>
> Everything else looks good so I will mark it ready for commit
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:40 AM, David Steele wrote:
> Perhaps I'm the one who is misunderstanding. If you propose a patch I'll be
> happy to review it, though I doubt there is a lot to be gained even if it
> would be a better implementation.
OK. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the input.
--
On 11/27/17 7:11 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:06 PM, David Steele wrote:
On 11/15/17 10:09 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
read_backup_label() is a static function in the backend code. With #2
I do not imply to change the order of the elements written in the
backup_label f
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:06 PM, David Steele wrote:
> On 11/15/17 10:09 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:20 AM, David Steele wrote:
>>> For this patch at least, I think we should do #1. Getting rid of the order
>>> dependency is attractive but there may be other programs
Hi Michael,
On 11/15/17 10:09 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:20 AM, David Steele wrote:
>> For this patch at least, I think we should do #1. Getting rid of the order
>> dependency is attractive but there may be other programs that are depending
>> on the order. I know yo
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:20 AM, David Steele wrote:
> For this patch at least, I think we should do #1. Getting rid of the order
> dependency is attractive but there may be other programs that are depending
> on the order. I know you are not proposing to change the order now, but it
> *could* b
On 11/15/17 6:01 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:16 PM, David Steele wrote:
Find my review below.
On 10/26/17 2:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. Attached is a patch to achieve so, I have
added as well a STOP TIMELINE field in the backup history fil
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:16 PM, David Steele wrote:
> Find my review below.
>
> On 10/26/17 2:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback. Attached is a patch to achieve so, I have
>> added as well a STOP TIMELINE field in the backup history file. Note
>> that START TIMELINE gets
Hi Michael,
Find my review below.
On 10/26/17 2:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Attached is a patch to achieve so, I have
> added as well a STOP TIMELINE field in the backup history file. Note
> that START TIMELINE gets automatically into the backup history file.
> Adde
12 matches
Mail list logo
