| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clean shutdown and warm standby |
| Date: | 2009-05-28 22:09:24 |
| Message-ID: | 1493.1243548564@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Thus there is no guarantee that this is sufficient to have archived all
> the files you would like to archive. The patch does not provide a clean
> shutdown in all cases and since you don't know what state its in, you
> are still forced to take external action to be safe, exactly as you do
> already.
> If I didn't already say, I came up with exactly the same solution 2
> years ago and then later explained it didn't work in all cases. I'm
> saying the same thing again here now.
What's your point? Surely the applied patch is a *necessary* component
of any attempt to try to ensure archiving is complete at shutdown.
I agree that it doesn't cover every risk factor, and there are some
risk factors that cannot be covered by Postgres itself. But isn't it
a step in a desirable direction?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-28 22:16:56 | Re: pg_migrator and an 8.3-compatible tsvector data type |
| Previous Message | Joshua Tolley | 2009-05-28 22:07:39 | Dtrace probes documentation |