Re: Avoiding adjacent checkpoint records

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Avoiding adjacent checkpoint records
Date: 2012-06-09 12:43:42
Message-ID: 26675.1339245822@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> So now the standard for my patches is that I must consider what will
> happen if the xlog is deleted?

When you're messing around with something that affects data integrity, yes.
The long and the short of it is that this patch does reduce our ability
to recover from easily-foreseeable disasters. The problem it was meant
to solve is not dire enough to justify that, and other fixes are
possible that don't require any compromises in this dimension.
So please revert. We can revisit the original complaint in 9.3.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-06-09 12:51:10 Re: pg_basebackup blocking all queries with horrible performance
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2012-06-09 09:40:25 Tab completion of function arguments not working in all cases