From: | markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Point in Time Recovery |
Date: | 2004-07-30 03:22:14 |
Message-ID: | 1091157734.2f5c68b0cf535@mail.coretech.co.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Quoting Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> > I was wondering about this point - might it not be just as reasonable
> > for the copied file to *be* an exact image of pg_control? Then a very
> > simple variant of pg_controldata (or maybe even just adding switches to
> > pg_controldata itself) would enable the relevant info to be extracted
>
> We didn't do that so admins could easily read the file contents.
>
Ease of reading is a good thing, no argument there.
However using 'pg_controldata' (or similar) to perform the read is not really
that much harder than using 'cat' - (it is a wee bit harder, I grant you)
When I posted the original mail I was thinking that the pg_control image is good
because it has much more information than just the last wal offset, and could
be used to perform a recovery in the advent of the "actual" pg_control being
unsuitable (e.g. backed up last instead of first on a busy system).
Of couse this thinking didn't make it into the original mail, sorry about that!
regards
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mamta Singh | 2004-07-30 04:53:02 | Regarding redo/undo files. |
Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2004-07-29 20:23:29 | Re: extra info on autovaccum log |