| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | spock(at)mgnet(dot)de |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Point in Time Recovery |
| Date: | 2004-07-08 10:42:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1089283370.17493.348.camel@stromboli |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 07:57, spock(at)mgnet(dot)de wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > We don't need to mention timelines in the docs, nor do we need to alter
> > pg_controldata to display it...just a comment in the code to explain why
> > we add a large number to the LogId after each recovery completes.
>
> I'd disagree on that. Knowing what exactly happens when recovering the
> database is a must. It makes people feel more safe about the process. This
> is because the software doesn't do things you wouldn't expect.
>
> On Oracle e.g. you create a new database incarnation when you recover a
> database (incomplete). Which means your System Change Number and your Log
> Sequence is reset to 0.
> Knowing this is crucial because you otherwise would wonder "Why is it
> doing that? Is this a bug or a feature?"
>
OK, will do.
Best regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Piskorski | 2004-07-08 12:22:21 | SAN, clustering, MPI, Backplane Re: Postgresql on SAN |
| Previous Message | Karel Zak | 2004-07-08 07:13:30 | windows encodings |