From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Brandon Craig Rhodes <brandon(at)rhodesmill(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: does database shut down cleanly when WAL device fails? |
Date: | 2005-05-05 02:41:34 |
Message-ID: | 200505050241.j452fYu05872@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Brandon Craig Rhodes <brandon(at)rhodesmill(dot)org> writes:
> > And the disputed point:
>
> > - If the drive holding the WAL fails, then the database engine
> > will shut down cleanly by writing everything in RAM out to
> > the real database tables, and no data will be lost.
>
> Whoever claimed that has no familiarity with the code at all, and no
> understanding of the basic WAL rule: write to the log BEFORE you write
> data.
>
> In point of fact, loss of the WAL drive will mean a database PANIC stop
> and probably a corrupt data area afterwards, since there'd be no
> guarantee that related page updates had all made it to disk.
Also the WAL files might be recyled at each checkpoint, which is at
least every five minutes, so pg_xlog will not contain all the WAL files
from the backup, unless you are using point-in-time recovery --- this
might be where you got confused.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karl O. Pinc | 2005-05-05 05:05:33 | Rpm packaging of 8.0.2 libraries |
Previous Message | Vlad | 2005-05-05 02:06:03 | Re: postgresql replication |