From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY |
Date: | 2020-06-26 12:46:41 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZMniYZQD5Ok1ts=wsb-8HjMUqkUkUUONEqW6QYBvNsPw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:59 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Any operation working on on-disk relation blocks needs to have a
> consistent state, and a clean shutdown gives this guarantee thanks to
> the shutdown checkpoint (see also pg_rewind). There are two states in
> the control file, shutdown for a primary and shutdown while in
> recovery to cover that. So if you stop the server cleanly but fail to
> see a proper state with pg_checksums, it seems to me that the proposed
> patch does not handle correctly the state of the cluster in the
> control file at shutdown. That's not good.
I think it is actually very good. If a feature that supposedly
prevents writing WAL permitted a shutdown checkpoint to be written, it
would be failing to accomplish its design goal. There is not much of a
use case for a feature that stops WAL from being written except when
it doesn't.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-06-26 13:19:43 | Re: should libpq also require TLSv1.2 by default? |
Previous Message | Rushabh Lathia | 2020-06-26 12:45:02 | Re: [PATCH] Remove Extra palloc Of raw_buf For Binary Format In COPY FROM |