Re: Help me recovering data

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Kouber Saparev <postgresql(at)saparev(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Help me recovering data
Date: 2005-02-16 17:18:42
Message-ID: 25316.1108574322@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> Right, but since the how to resolve it currently involves executing a
> query, simply stopping dead won't allow you to resolve it. Also, if we
> stop at the exact wraparound point, can we run into problems actually
> trying to do the vacuum if that's still the resolution technique?

We'd have to do something with a fair amount of slop. The idea I was
toying with just now involved a forcible shutdown once we get within
say 100,000 transactions of a wrap failure; but apply this check only
when in interactive operation. This would allow the DBA to perform
the needed VACUUMing manually in a standalone backend.

The real question here is exactly how large a cluestick do you want to
hit the DBA with. I don't think we can "guarantee" no data loss with
anything less than forced shutdown, but that's not so much a cluestick
as a clue howitzer.

Maybe

(a) within 200,000 transactions of wrap, every transaction start
delivers a WARNING message;

(b) within 100,000 transactions, forced shutdown as above.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephan Szabo 2005-02-16 17:20:03 Re: Help me recovering data
Previous Message pgsql 2005-02-16 17:16:38 Re: Help me recovering data