| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matheus de Oliveira <matioli(dot)matheus(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in visibility map WAL-logging |
| Date: | 2014-01-08 12:43:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20140108124304.GA2591@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-01-08 14:37:34 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> That seems to be a very common mistake to make. I wish we could do something
> about it. Do you think it would've helped in your case if there was a big
> fat warning in the beginning of backup_label, along the lines of: "# DO NOT
> REMOVE THIS FILE FROM A BACKUP" ? Any other ideas how we could've made it
> more obvious to the script author to not remove it?
I've been wondering about the possibility of setting a boolean in
checkpoint records indicating that a backup label needs to be used when
starting from that checkpoint. That boolean would only get checked when
using a recovery.conf and we've started with pg_control indicating that
it was written by a primary (i.e. state <= DB_SHUTDOWNING).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-08 12:44:53 | Re: Bug in visibility map WAL-logging |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-01-08 12:37:34 | Re: Bug in visibility map WAL-logging |