| From: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposing pg_hibernate |
| Date: | 2014-06-05 12:22:44 |
| Message-ID: | CABwTF4VtGN6654OVML9Nb9ktbJ4UD-J27kW2NKwwPF7jRqmjAg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-06-04 14:50:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The thing I was concerned about is that the system might have been in
>> recovery for months. What was hot at the time the base backup was
>> taken seems like a poor guide to what will be hot at the time of
>> promotion. Consider a history table, for example: the pages at the
>> end, which have just been written, are much more likely to be useful
>> than anything earlier.
>
> I'd assumed that the hibernation files would simply be excluded from the
> basebackup...
Yes, they will be excluded, provided the BlockReader processes have
finished, because each BlockReader unlinks its save-file after it is
done restoring buffers listed in it.
Best regards,
--
Gurjeet Singh http://gurjeet.singh.im/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2014-06-05 12:32:09 | Re: Proposing pg_hibernate |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2014-06-05 12:09:07 | Re: Proposing pg_hibernate |