FW: Patch for option in pg_resetxlog for restore from WAL files

From: Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
To: "tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: FW: Patch for option in pg_resetxlog for restore from WAL files
Date: 2012-07-23 03:48:45
Message-ID: 6C0B27F7206C9E4CA54AE035729E9C382851F214@szxeml509-mbs
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I have uploaded the patch for new option in pg_resetxlog at below location:

https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=897

This completes the implementation of Option-2 discussed in below mail.

Now I will work on Option-1 (1. To compute the value of max LSN in data pages based on user input
whether he wants it for an individual file, a particular directory or whole database.)

> From: Amit kapila
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 7:17 PM

> Patch implementing the design in below mail chain is attached with this mail.

>From: Amit Kapila [mailto:amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 10:21 AM
>>From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com]
>>Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 8:59 PM
>>On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
>> Based on the discussion and suggestions in this mail chain, following
features can be implemented:
>>
>> 1. To compute the value of max LSN in data pages based on user input
whether he wants it for an individual file,
>> a particular directory or whole database.
>>
>> 2a. To search the available WAL files for the latest checkpoint record
and prints the value.
>> 2b. To search the available WAL files for the latest checkpoint record
and recreates a pg_control file pointing at that checkpoint.
>>
>> I have kept both options to address different kind of corruption
scenarios.

> I think I can see all of those things being potentially useful. There
> are a couple of pending patches that will revise the WAL format
> slightly; not sure how much those are likely to interfere with any
> development you might do on (2) in the meantime.

With Regards,

Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2012-07-23 04:37:33 Re: Checkpointer split has broken things dramatically (was Re: DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation)
Previous Message meixiangming 2012-07-23 01:51:56 BUG #6748: sequence value may be conflict in some cases