On 23 August 2016 at 14:57, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Gabriele Bartolini
> wrote:
>> Hi Simon and Michael,
>>
>> 2016-08-23 10:39 GMT+02:00 Simon Riggs :
>>>
>>> Agreed, but I'd move all the comments above the block.
>>
>>
>> That's fine with me.
>
> +1.
Committed
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Gabriele Bartolini
wrote:
> Hi Simon and Michael,
>
> 2016-08-23 10:39 GMT+02:00 Simon Riggs :
>>
>> Agreed, but I'd move all the comments above the block.
>
>
> That's fine with me.
+1.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgres
Hi Simon and Michael,
2016-08-23 10:39 GMT+02:00 Simon Riggs :
>
> Agreed, but I'd move all the comments above the block.
>
That's fine with me.
Thanks,
Gabriele
--
Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia - Director
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
gabriele.bartol...@2ndquadrant.it |
On 23 August 2016 at 08:56, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Gabriele Bartolini
> wrote:
I'd suggest rewording it a bit instead, please see attached.
> And of course this needs a backpatch.
Agreed, but I'd move all the comments above the block.
--
Simon Riggs
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Gabriele Bartolini
wrote:
> Looking up the code in more details I see that, unless replication slot
> are enabled, pg_receivexlog does not report the flush position (this is a
> precaution that's been taken when '--synchronous' was probably not around).
> Please
Hi guys,
while adding synchronous WAL streaming to Barman, I noticed that
pg_receivexlog - unless a replication slot is specified and --synchronous
is passed - does not become a synchronous receiver (if the application_name
is in the synchronous_standby_names value). I was a bit surprised by thi
