| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mario Soto | 2004-07-23 03:58:03 | pg_autovacuum problem |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2004-07-23 00:05:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-07-23 02:11:13 | Preparation for beta |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2004-07-23 01:07:47 | Re: Tutorial |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2004-07-23 04:31:13 | autovauum integration patch: Attempt #4 |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2004-07-23 00:05:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery |