Re: Regarding Checkpoint Redo Record

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 21:26:47
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZC=oijDYkWtg3dBX+ZcXFy-Wfeu3QDD8rJbpkJ71TRtA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.

I could go either way on that one, but...

> Also
> I think the full-page-write mechanism would no longer protect against
> torn pages during replay if you did that.

...this is a very good point.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2012-01-04 21:30:30 Re: Page Checksums + Double Writes
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-01-04 21:25:00 Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2