Re: Avoiding shutdown checkpoint at failover

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Avoiding shutdown checkpoint at failover
Date: 2012-08-22 15:01:40
Message-ID: CAHGQGwGjNL7yjTMb=4hpqP-9SPoPsCagJPmbx28GjYfFiwc-Ug@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 08:20:02AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> One thing I would like to ask is that why you think walreceiver is more
>> >> appropriate for writing XLOG_END_OF_RECOVERY record than startup
>> >> process. I was thinking the opposite, because if we do so, we might be
>> >> able to skip the end-of-recovery checkpoint even in file-based log-shipping
>> >> case.
>> >
>> > Right now, WALReceiver has one code path/use case.
>> >
>> > Startup has so many, its much harder to know whether we'll screw up one of them.
>> >
>> > If we can add it in either place then I choose the simplest, most
>> > relevant place. If the code is the same, we can move it around later.
>> >
>> > Let me write the code and then we can think some more.
>>
>> Are we still considering trying to do this for 9.2? Seems it's been
>> over a month without a new patch, and it's not entirely clear that we
>> know what the design should be.
>
> Did this get completed?

No, not yet.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mathieu Fenniak 2012-08-22 15:48:49 Re: restartpoints stop generating on streaming replication slave
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2012-08-22 14:49:01 Re: A caveat of partitioning tables in the document