| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Avoiding adjacent checkpoint records |
| Date: | 2012-06-09 12:43:42 |
| Message-ID: | 26675.1339245822@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> So now the standard for my patches is that I must consider what will
> happen if the xlog is deleted?
When you're messing around with something that affects data integrity, yes.
The long and the short of it is that this patch does reduce our ability
to recover from easily-foreseeable disasters. The problem it was meant
to solve is not dire enough to justify that, and other fixes are
possible that don't require any compromises in this dimension.
So please revert. We can revisit the original complaint in 9.3.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-09 12:51:10 | Re: pg_basebackup blocking all queries with horrible performance |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2012-06-09 09:40:25 | Tab completion of function arguments not working in all cases |