From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Mark Kirkwood <markir@coretech.co.nz>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:01:24 -0400
Message-ID: <14500.1090548084@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1090540113.3057.17.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <200407132242.i6DMgg612564@candle.pha.pa.us>
<1089760416.17493.3327.camel@stromboli>
<40F49AE9.2060805@familyhealth.com.au>
<1089789682.17493.3890.camel@stromboli>
<40FF1D88.30404@coretech.co.nz>
<12173.1090527593@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1090540113.3057.17.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 21:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I think you are right: presence of recovery.conf should force a
>> WAL scan even if pg_control claims it's shut down. Fix committed.
> This *should* be possible but I haven't tested it.
I did.
It's really not risky. The fact that the code doesn't look beyond the
checkpoint record when things seem to be kosher is just a speed
optimization (and probably a rather pointless one...) We have got to be
able to detect the end of WAL in any case, so we'd just find there are
no more records and stop.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, simon@2ndquadrant.com, markir@coretech.co.nz
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
In-Reply-To: <14500.1090548084@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox