| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: StartupCLOG |
| Date: | 2008-09-04 15:58:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1220543935.4371.981.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 11:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I notice that StartupCLOG zeroes out entries later than the nextxid when
> > we complete recovery in StartupXLOG, reason given is safety in case we
> > crash.
>
> > ISTM that we should also do that whenever we see a Shutdown Checkpoint
> > in WAL, since that can be caused by a shutdown immediate, shutdown abort
> > or crash.
>
> Er, what? The definition of a crash is the *lack* of a shutdown
> checkpoint.
Yes, but that's not what I'm saying.
I was thinking about what happens when you are performing a PITR using
log records that contain a crash/recovery/shutdown checkpoint sequence.
I take it there's no problem there?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-04 16:03:46 | Re: Debugging methods |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2008-09-04 15:51:50 | Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code |