| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 9.2.3 crashes during archive recovery |
| Date: | 2013-02-13 19:40:23 |
| Message-ID: | 11648.1360784423@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> On 13.02.2013 21:30, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, archive recovery is a different scenario --- Simon was questioning
>> whether we need a minRecoveryPoint mechanism in crash recovery, or at
>> least that's what I thought he asked.
> Ah, ok. The short answer to that is "no", because in crash recovery, we
> just replay the WAL all the way to the end. I thought he was questioning
> updating the control file at every XLogFlush() during archive recovery.
> The answer to that is that it's not so bad, because XLogFlush() is
> called so infrequently during recovery.
Right, and it's not so evil from a reliability standpoint either, partly
because of that and partly because, by definition, this isn't your only
copy of the data.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-02-13 20:07:54 | proposal or just idea for psql - show first N rows from relation backslash statement |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-02-13 19:37:44 | Re: 9.2.3 crashes during archive recovery |