On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
>> I think
>> we need a detailed design document for how this is all going to work.
>> We need to not only handle the master properly but also handle the
>> slave properly. Consider, for example, the case where the slave
>> begins to replay the transaction, reaches a restartpoint after
>> replaying some of the new pages, and then crashes. If the subsequent
>> restart from the restartpoint blows away the main relation fork, we're
>> hosed. I fear we're plunging into implementation details without
>> having a good overall design in mind first.
> As I said in my first post, I'm basing the patch on the post:
> So I assumed the design was ok (except for the "stray file around
> on a standby" case, which has been discussed earlier on this thread).
Well, I sort of assumed the design was OK, too, but the more we talk
about this WAL-logging stuff, the less convinced I am that I really
understand the problem. :-(
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-05-31 15:40:40|
|Subject: Re: patch integration|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2011-05-31 15:38:16|
|Subject: Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project|