Subject: Re: Hot Standby on git
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <4AC5B92A.7090508@enterprisedb.com>
References: <1253958559.4449.833.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
	<4AC2FBB9.7060304@enterprisedb.com>
	<1254408330.17864.233.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
	<4AC4CF18.50309@enterprisedb.com>
	<1254413624.17864.243.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
	<4AC5A60F.5050503@enterprisedb.com>
	<1254468966.17864.301.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
	<4AC5AF36.3020900@enterprisedb.com>
	<1254470874.17864.309.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
	<4AC5B92A.7090508@enterprisedb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:13:43 +0100
Message-Id: <1254474823.17864.326.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 11:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 10:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > 
> >> It seems dangerous to write a WAL record after the shutdown checkpoint.
> >> It will be overwritten by subsequent startup, which is a recipe for trouble.
> > 
> > I've said its a corner case and not worth spending time on. I'm putting
> > it in at your request. If it's not correct before and not correct after,
> > where exactly do you want it?
> 
> I don't know. Perhaps it should go between the REDO pointer of the
> shutdown checkpoint and the checkpoint record itself. 

That would seem minimally invasive approach and would appear to work for
both cases. Will do.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com