From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | James Bardin <jbardin(at)bu(dot)edu>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #5011: Standby recovery unable to follow timeline change |
Date: | 2009-08-26 15:40:04 |
Message-ID: | 16549.1251301204@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Specifically, I propose this patch instead.
> It looks better, but leaves the door open for WAL insertions for a much
> longer period. Particularly, there's the call to CheckpointGuts(), which
> does a lot of things. Maybe I'm just too paranoid about keeping that
> sanity check as tight as possible...
Well, I'd prefer to go through the LocalSetXLogInsertAllowed/
reset LocalXLogInsertAllowed dance twice rather than have this code
calling InitXLOGAccess directly (and unconditionally, which was
even worse IMHO). But I don't actually see anything wrong with
having CheckpointGuts enabled to write WAL. I could even see that
being *necessary* in some future iteration of the system --- who's
to say that a checkpoint involves adding only one WAL entry?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-08-26 16:20:13 | Re: BUG #4996: postgres.exe memory consumption keeps going up |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2009-08-26 15:38:17 | Re: BUG #4996: postgres.exe memory consumption keeps going up |