From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
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 07:56:32 |
Message-ID: | 20190405075632.GE31003@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 09:41:58AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> 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.
The startup process requests a checkpoint since 9.3, and before that
it was doing the checkpoint by itself (grep for fast_promoted and
RequestCheckpoint() around line 7579 in xlog.c). This allows the
recovery to finish much faster.
> Could this be a problem for anything else besides pg_rewind?
Not that I know of, at least not in the tree.
> 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).
We had a couple of reports on the matter over the past years. Perhaps
we could use a big fat warning but that feels a bit overdoing it.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2019-04-05 07:59:29 | Re: pg_rewind vs superuser |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-04-05 07:50:20 | Re: [PATCH v20] GSSAPI encryption support |