Re: AW: 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: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)Wien(dot)Spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: AW: WAL & RC1 status
Date: 2001-03-05 16:25:00
Message-ID: 200103051625.LAA09189@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)Wien(dot)Spardat(dot)at> writes:
> >> 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.
>
> > Was that the "only one checkpoint back in time in pg_control" issue ?
>
> Yes.

Is changing pg_control the thing that is going to require the initdb?

--
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 Tom Lane 2001-03-05 16:26:38 Re: Query Planning time increased 3 times on 7.1 compared to 7.0.3
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-03-05 16:13:52 Re: AW: WAL & RC1 status