Re: Documentation Update: Document pg_start_backup checkpoint behavior

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Renner <michael(dot)renner(at)amd(dot)co(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Documentation Update: Document pg_start_backup checkpoint behavior
Date: 2009-04-04 01:08:05
Message-ID: 200904040108.n34185f03121@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >> + ereport(NOTICE,
> >> + (errmsg("performing checkpoint")));
>
> > You've *got* to be kidding.
>
> Sigh. I have to apologize for that over-hasty complaint: I misread
> where you intended to put the message. (Seems like there is too
> much stuff in xlog.c that executes in too many different contexts.
> Maybe we could split it up sometime.)
>
> Still, I don't much like this solution. I agree with Heikki:
> let's just fix it.

Agreed, fixing it is better than trying to document/report odd behavior.

There was talk about making pg_start_backup do an immediate checkpoint
but there was some discussion that you wouldn't want an I/O storm from
pg_start_backup(). However, figuring you are going to do the tar backup
anyway, the pg_start_backup I/O seems trivial.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-04-04 01:09:03 Re: Documentation Update: Document pg_start_backup checkpoint behavior
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-04-04 00:47:59 Re: question on bits32 wraparound check