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

Re: Hot standby, recovery infra

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot standby, recovery infra
Date: 2009-01-30 09:33:19
Message-ID: 4982C95F.5060306@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I just realized that the new minSafeStartPoint is actually exactly the 
same concept as the existing minRecoveryPoint. As the recovery 
progresses, we could advance minRecoveryPoint just as well as the new 
minSafeStartPoint.

Perhaps it's a good idea to keep them separate anyway though, the 
original minRecoveryPoint might be a useful debugging aid. Or what do 
you think?

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2009-01-30 10:34:21
Subject: Re: Hot standby, recovery infra
Previous:From: Zdenek KotalaDate: 2009-01-30 08:24:59
Subject: Re: Commitfest infrastructure (was Re: 8.4 release planning)

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