| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Regarding Checkpoint Redo Record |
| Date: | 2012-01-04 21:06:45 |
| Message-ID: | 22044.1325711205@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> But, the OP makes me wonder: why can a standby only perform a
> restartpoint where the master performed a checkpoint? It seems like a
> standby ought to be able to create a restartpoint anywhere, just by
> writing everything, flushing it to disk, and update pg_control.
Perhaps, but then crash restarts would have to accept start pointers
that point at any random place in the WAL. I like the additional error
checking of verifying that there's a checkpoint recod there. Also
I think the full-page-write mechanism would no longer protect against
torn pages during replay if you did that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-04 21:21:37 | Re: BUG #6379: SQL Function Causes Back-end Crash |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-01-04 21:02:16 | Re: Page Checksums + Double Writes |