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

Re: AW: WAL & RC1 status

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)Wien(dot)Spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: AW: WAL & RC1 status
Date: 2001-03-05 16:25:00
Message-ID: 200103051625.LAA09189@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA(at)Wien(dot)Spardat(dot)at> writes:
> >> At least one of my concerns (single point of failure) would require a
> >> change to the layout of pg_control, which would force initdb anyway.
> 
> > Was that the "only one checkpoint back in time in pg_control" issue ?
> 
> Yes.

Is changing pg_control the thing that is going to require the initdb?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-03-05 16:26:38
Subject: Re: Query Planning time increased 3 times on 7.1 compared to 7.0.3
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-03-05 16:13:52
Subject: Re: AW: WAL & RC1 status

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