Re: WAL & RC1 status

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status
Date: 2001-03-02 16:37:01
Message-ID: 200103021637.LAA27673@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Well, I was thinking a few things. Right now, if we update the
> > catversion.h, we will require a dump/reload. If we can update just the
> > WAL version stamp, that will allow us to fix WAL format problems without
> > requiring people to dump/reload.
>
> Since there is not a separate WAL version stamp, introducing one now
> would certainly force an initdb. I don't mind adding one if you think
> it's useful; another 4 bytes in pg_control won't hurt anything. But
> it's not going to save anyone's bacon on this cycle.
>
> At least one of my concerns (single point of failure) would require a
> change to the layout of pg_control, which would force initdb anyway.
> Anyone want to propose a third version# for pg_control?

I now remember Hiroshi complaining about major WAL problems also,
particularly corrupt WAL files preventing the database from starting.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ross J. Reedstrom 2001-03-02 16:38:55 Re: Attribute Alignment
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2001-03-02 16:28:39 Re: Re: [HACKERS] Release in 2 weeks ...