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

Re: bug of recovery?

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bug of recovery?
Date: 2011-09-27 05:00:14
Message-ID: CAHGQGwGwVrsXGKDd5MSO-m3sG+RZ_5zNPvLYHUPD+KLAXw907Q@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> ISTM that writing an invalid-page table to the disk for every restartpoints is
>> better approach.
>
> I still say that's uncalled-for overkill.  The invalid-page table is not
> necessary for recovery, it's only a debugging cross-check.

If so, there is no risk even if the invalid-page table is lost and the check
is skipped unexpectedly?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Brar PieningDate: 2011-09-27 05:49:58
Subject: Re: Support UTF-8 files with BOM in COPY FROM
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-09-27 04:11:39
Subject: Re: random isolation test failures

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