To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>,
	Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, mascarm@mascari.com,
	ZeugswetterA@spardat.at, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Point in Time Recovery 
In-reply-to: <1089718702.17493.2527.camel@stromboli> 
References: <1089060299.17493.58.camel@stromboli>
	<4263.1089064016@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1089150005.17493.270.camel@stromboli>
	<1089718702.17493.2527.camel@stromboli>
Comments: In-reply-to Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:38:23 +0100"
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:29:44 -0400
Message-ID: <15780.1089728984@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Please tell me that we can ignore the state of the clog,

We can.

The reason that keeping track of timelines is interesting for xlog is
simply to take pity on the poor DBA who needs to distinguish the various
archived xlog files he's got laying about, and so that we can detect
errors like supplying inconsistent sets of xlog segments during restore.

This does not apply to clog because it's not archived.  It's no more
than a data file.  If you think you have trouble recreating clog then
you have the same issues recreating data files.

			regards, tom lane