Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 03.11.2010 11:34, Greg Stark wrote:
>> I'm actually not nearly so sanguine about this not affecting existing
>> installations. It means, for example, that anyone who has written
>> monitoring scripts that watch the wal position will see behaviour
>> they're not familiar with.
> You mean, they will see an unfamiliar wal position right after initdb? I
> guess, but who runs monitoring scripts on a freshly initdb'd database
> before doing anything on it?
The WAL position immediately after initdb is unspecified, and definitely
NOT 0/0, in any case. From this perspective initdb will merely seem to
have emitted more WAL than it used to.
A possibly more realistic objection is that a slave freshly initdb'd
with 9.0.2 might have trouble syncing up with a master using 9.0.1,
if the master is so new it hasn't chewed a segment's worth of WAL yet.
Not sure if this is actually a problem.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2010-11-03 14:34:18|
|Subject: Re: improved parallel make support|
|Previous:||From: Kenneth Marshall||Date: 2010-11-03 13:23:14|
|Subject: Re: Hash support for arrays|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2010-11-03 15:33:42|
|Subject: pgsql: Print a make warning when using GNU make older than 3.80|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-11-03 10:00:31|
|Subject: Re: pgsql: Bootstrap WAL to begin at segment logid=0 logseg=1