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

Re: bug of recovery?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 04:05:44
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.  You're more
likely to introduce bugs than fix any by adding a mechanism like that.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-09-27 04:11:39
Subject: Re: random isolation test failures
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2011-09-27 03:29:00
Subject: Re: random isolation test failures

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group