Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations

This is great Tom. I will try to get what I have to you, Vadim, and
other interested parties tonight (Mon), assuming none of my tests fail
and reveal major bugs. It will do most of the important stuff except
your changes to the local buffer manager. I just have a few more minor
tweaks, and I would like to test it a little first.

On your advice I have made it use direct OS calls to copy the files,
using BLCKSZ aligned read() requests, instead of going through the
buffer manager for reads. I can think more about the correctness of this
later, since the rest of the code doesn't depend on which method is
used.

To Richard Tucker: I think duplicating the WAL files the way you plan is
not the way I want to do it. I'd rather have a log archiving system be
used for this. One thing that does need to be done is an interactive
recovery mode, and as soon as I finish getting my current work out for
review I'd be glad to have you write it if you want. You'll need to see
this in order to interface properly.

Regards,

John Nield

On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 22:52, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Sounds like a win all around; make PITR easier and temp tables faster.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > These changes seem very attractive to me even without regard for making
> > the world safer for PITR. I'm willing to volunteer to make them happen,
> > if there are no objections.
> >
> > regards, tom lane
> >
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
> + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>
--
J. R. Nield
jrnield(at)usol(dot)com