| From: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_rewind vs superuser |
| Date: | 2019-04-05 07:41:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20190405074158.GA31167@nighthawk.caipicrew.dd-dns.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 01:11:29PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> At the same time, let's also document that we need to use a checkpoint
> on the promoted standby so as the control file gets a refresh and
> pg_rewind is able to work properly. I promised that some time ago and
> got reminded of that issue after seeing this thread...
Is there a good reason why Postgres doesn't just issue a CHECKPOINT
after promote itself? After all, this seems to be about making the
control file having the proper content, which sounds like a good thing
to have in general.
Could this be a problem for anything else besides pg_rewind?
This looks like a needless footgun waiting to happen, and just
documenting it in pg_rewind's notes section looks a bit too hidden to me
(but is certainly an improvement).
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-04-05 07:50:20 | Re: [PATCH v20] GSSAPI encryption support |
| Previous Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2019-04-05 07:34:48 | RE: Timeout parameters |