Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations

"J. R. Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com> writes:
> I am working on a way to do this with a signal, using holdoffs around
> calls into the storage-manager and VFS layers to prevent re-entrant
> calls. The local buffer manager is simple enough that it should be
> possible to flush them from within a signal handler at most times, but
> the VFS and storage manager are not safe to re-enter from a handler.

> Does this sound like a good idea?

No. What happened to "simple"?

Before I'd accept anything like that, I'd rip out the local buffer
manager and just do everything in the shared manager. I've never
seen any proof that the local manager buys any noticeable performance
gain anyway ... how many people really do anything much with a table
during its first transaction of existence?

regards, tom lane