| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [BUG] Archive recovery failure on 9.3+. |
| Date: | 2014-01-09 20:16:16 |
| Message-ID: | 16923.1389298576@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> Actually, why is the partially-filled 000000010000000000000002 file
> archived in the first place? ...
> So, the rationale is that otherwise it would take a long time until that
> segment is archived. To be precise, I don't think the segment with the
> old TLI would ever be archived without the above, but the same segment
> on the new timeline would, after it fills up.
> Wouldn't it be better to not archive the old segment, and instead switch
> to a new segment after writing the end-of-recovery checkpoint, so that
> the segment on the new timeline is archived sooner?
Don't we want to archive both? If you want to recover to the end of the
old timeline, you're going to need that file too, no?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | knizhnik | 2014-01-09 20:18:51 | Re: [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-01-09 20:05:57 | Re: [BUG] Archive recovery failure on 9.3+. |