Re: Remove secondary checkpoint

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Remove the code that maintained two checkpoint's WAL files and all
> associated stuff.

> Try to avoid breaking anything else

> This
> * reduces disk space requirements on master
> * removes a minor bug in fast failover
> * simplifies code

Doesn't it also make crash recovery less robust? The whole point
of that mechanism is to be able to cope if the latest checkpoint
record is unreadable. If you want to toss that overboard, I think
you need to make the case why we don't need it, not just post a
patch removing it. *Of course* the code is simpler without it.
That's utterly irrelevant. The code would be even simpler with
no crash recovery at all ... but we're not going there.

regards, tom lane