Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, markw@osdl.org,
	kn@mgnet.de, pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <23306.1090256164@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200407191635.i6JGZ5A21033@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<23306.1090256164@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: 2nd Quadrant
Message-Id: <1090275263.28049.378.camel@stromboli>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:14:24 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 17:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I had second thoughts about that and didn't do it in the committed
> >> patch, though it's certainly still open for debate.
> 
> > How are we handling a crash during recovery?
> 
> Retry, perhaps.  It doesn't seem any different from crash-during-recovery
> in the non-archived scenario ...
> 

Well, a recovery is just re-applying already written logs at super
speed. We don't need to write WAL because we already wrote it once (and
that would really confuse the timeline issue).

I think if this was an issue, the solution would be to speed up recovery
since that would benefit us more than putting recovery-squared code in.

Just start over...

Best Regards, Simon Riggs