From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Remove secondary checkpoint |
Date: | 2017-10-30 16:29:16 |
Message-ID: | 20171030162916.v4oejvndnuxc237p@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-10-30 10:10:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I was mostly just thinking out loud, listing another option rather
> > than advocating for it.
>
> FWIW, I just wanted the question to be debated and resolved properly.
>
> After rereading the thread Andres pointed to, I thought of a hazard
> that I think Andres alluded to, but didn't spell out explicitly:
> if we can't read the primary checkpoint, and then back up to a
> secondary one and replay as much of WAL as we can read, we may well
> be left with an inconsistent database.
Exactly.
> I'm content now that removing the secondary checkpoint is an OK
> decision. (This isn't a review of Simon's patch, though.)
I wonder if we shouldn't add a pg_resetxlog option that sets the
checkpoint to start from to a certain LSN. For the few cases where
there's actual data recovery needed that's a lot more useful than
randomly using checkpoint - 1. And it's an explicit expert only thing,
without costing everyone.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christoph Dreis | 2017-10-30 16:43:02 | Fix duplicated "the" occurrences in codebase |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-10-30 16:17:42 | Re: pow support for pgbench |