| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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 13:34:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20171030133441.irboodb63ltdide3@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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:
> > /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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2017-10-30 13:39:42 | Re: Comment typo |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-30 13:27:37 | Re: Remove secondary checkpoint |