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

Re: BUG #5011: Standby recovery unable to follow timeline change

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: James Bardin <jbardin(at)bu(dot)edu>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #5011: Standby recovery unable to follow timeline change
Date: 2009-08-26 15:40:04
Message-ID: 16549.1251301204@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Specifically, I propose this patch instead. 

> It looks better, but leaves the door open for WAL insertions for a much
> longer period. Particularly, there's the call to CheckpointGuts(), which
> does a lot of things. Maybe I'm just too paranoid about keeping that
> sanity check as tight as possible...

Well, I'd prefer to go through the LocalSetXLogInsertAllowed/
reset LocalXLogInsertAllowed dance twice rather than have this code
calling InitXLOGAccess directly (and unconditionally, which was
even worse IMHO).  But I don't actually see anything wrong with
having CheckpointGuts enabled to write WAL.  I could even see that
being *necessary* in some future iteration of the system --- who's
to say that a checkpoint involves adding only one WAL entry?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2009-08-26 16:20:13
Subject: Re: BUG #4996: postgres.exe memory consumption keeps going up
Previous:From: Craig RingerDate: 2009-08-26 15:38:17
Subject: Re: BUG #4996: postgres.exe memory consumption keeps going up

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