From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Remove secondary checkpoint |
Date: | 2017-10-30 13:46:19 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYNGcuUt2B0z6TxiDMkU9jGpcLdUdLKhF+3wa+VuW=LdQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> > I think it does the contrary. The current mechanism is, in my opinion,
>> > downright dangerous:
>> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160201235854.GO8743@awork2.anarazel.de
>>
>> A sort of middle way would be to keep the secondary checkpoint around
>> but never try to replay from that point, or only if a specific flag is
>> provided.
>
> Why do you want to keep the secondary checkpoint? If there is no way to
> automatically start a recovery from the prior checkpoint, is it really
> possible to do the same manually? I think the only advantage of keeping
> it is that the WAL files are kept around for a little bit longer. But
> is that useful? Surely for any environment where you really care, you
> have a WAL archive somewhere, so it doesn't matter if files are removed
> from the primary's pg_xlog dir.
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-30 13:51:49 | Re: Remove secondary checkpoint |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2017-10-30 13:39:42 | Re: Comment typo |