Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal when WALarchiving is enabled

> On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 17:18 +0800, Jacky Leng wrote:
>> Second, suppose that no checkpoint has occured during the upper
>> series--authough not quite possible;
>
> That part is irrelevant. It's forced out to disk and doesn't need
> recovery, with or without the checkpoint.
>
> There's no hole that I can see.

Yes, it's really forced out.
But if there's no checkpoint, the recovery process will begin from
the time point before T1 is created, and as T1 was dropped, it'll
remove T2's file!

> --
> Simon Riggs
> 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>