| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, markw(at)osdl(dot)org, kn(at)mgnet(dot)de, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery |
| Date: | 2004-07-19 22:14:24 |
| Message-ID: | 1090275263.28049.378.camel@stromboli |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 17:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I had second thoughts about that and didn't do it in the committed
> >> patch, though it's certainly still open for debate.
>
> > How are we handling a crash during recovery?
>
> Retry, perhaps. It doesn't seem any different from crash-during-recovery
> in the non-archived scenario ...
>
Well, a recovery is just re-applying already written logs at super
speed. We don't need to write WAL because we already wrote it once (and
that would really confuse the timeline issue).
I think if this was an issue, the solution would be to speed up recovery
since that would benefit us more than putting recovery-squared code in.
Just start over...
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2004-07-20 00:48:50 | Re: PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-07-19 21:36:38 | Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-19 22:15:12 | Re: Why we really need timelines *now* in PITR |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-07-19 21:58:16 | Re: Why we really need timelines *now* in PITR |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2004-07-20 00:48:50 | Re: PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-07-19 21:38:17 | Re: fix schema ownership on first connection preliminary patch |