| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Data-only pg_rewind, take 2 |
| Date: | 2019-03-18 04:09:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20190318040942.GD1885@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 09:00:57PM +0800, Chris Travers wrote:
> I also added test cases and some docs. I don't know if the docs are
> sufficient. Feedback is appreciated.
To be honest, I don't think that this approach is a good idea per the
same reasons as mentioned the last time, as this can cause pg_rewind
to break if any newly-added folder in the data directory has
non-replaceable data which is needed at the beginning of recovery and
cannot be automatically rebuilt. So that's one extra maintenance
burden to worry about.
Here is the reference of the last thread about the same topic:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAN-RpxD8Y7hMOjzd93hOqV6n8kPEo5cmW9gYm+8JirTPiFnmmQ@mail.gmail.com
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-03-18 04:20:32 | Re: Performance issue in foreign-key-aware join estimation |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-03-18 04:02:35 | Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums |