| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot standby, recovery infra |
| Date: | 2009-02-01 08:28:57 |
| Message-ID: | 1233476937.4500.48.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 22:32 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> If you poison your WAL archive with a XLOG_CRASH_RECOVERY record,
> recovery will never be able to proceed over that point. There would have
> to be a switch to ignore those records, at the very least.
Definitely in assert mode only.
I'll do it as a test patch and keep it separate from main line.
> You don't really need to do it with a new WAL record. You could just add
> a GUC or recovery.conf option along the lines of recovery_target:
> crash_target=0/123456, and check for that in ReadRecord or wherever you
> want the crash to occur.
Knowing that LSN is somewhat harder
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-02-01 08:32:01 | Re: Hot standby, recovery infra |
| Previous Message | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz | 2009-02-01 04:54:08 | Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |