| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: hot_standby_feedback vs excludeVacuum and snapshots |
| Date: | 2018-06-09 13:00:36 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jK750fY83oeVrp1EngF=W=9r_f8hoftC2LVUqx+2koe6Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8 June 2018 at 19:03, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> It seems to have affected Greg.
>
> As far as I can tell Greg was just theorizing?
I'll wait for Greg to say whether this was an actual case that needs
to be fixed or not. If not, happy to revert.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-06-09 13:10:11 | Re: hot_standby_feedback vs excludeVacuum and snapshots |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2018-06-09 12:36:01 | Re: Compromised postgresql instances |