Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
Date: 2004-07-23 02:01:24
Message-ID: 14500.1090548084@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-adminpgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 21:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I think you are right: presence of recovery.conf should force a
>> WAL scan even if pg_control claims it's shut down.  Fix committed.

> This *should* be possible but I haven't tested it.

I did.

It's really not risky.  The fact that the code doesn't look beyond the
checkpoint record when things seem to be kosher is just a speed
optimization (and probably a rather pointless one...)  We have got to be
able to detect the end of WAL in any case, so we'd just find there are
no more records and stop.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-07-23 02:11:13
Subject: Preparation for beta
Previous:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2004-07-23 01:07:47
Subject: Re: Tutorial

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Mario SotoDate: 2004-07-23 03:58:03
Subject: pg_autovacuum problem
Previous:From: Mark KirkwoodDate: 2004-07-23 00:05:13
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2004-07-23 04:31:13
Subject: autovauum integration patch: Attempt #4
Previous:From: Mark KirkwoodDate: 2004-07-23 00:05:13
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group