From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: xlog loose ends, continued |
Date: | 2001-03-14 00:39:08 |
Message-ID: | 3AAEBDAC.3F902BB2@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >> That'll be true in any case, unless we refuse to start up at all upon
> >> detecting xlog corruption (which doesn't seem like the way to fly).
> >> Not sure what we can do about that.
> > What I would refuse in the event of log corruption is continuing
> > normal database operations.
> Hmm. We could do that if we had some notion of a read-only operating
> mode, perhaps. But we don't have one now and I don't want to add it
> for 7.1. Can we agree to look at this more for 7.2?
I'd like to have a readonly mode driven by integrity requirements for
corruption recovery for database tables, for replication, and (in the
future) for distributed databases, so perhaps we can do a trial
implementation fairly soon. Not sure how it would impact the backend(s),
but istm that we might be able to do a first implementation for 7.1.x.
I'll bring it up again when appropriate...
- Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Clift | 2001-03-14 01:00:12 | Re: Performance monitor |
Previous Message | Matthew Kirkwood | 2001-03-13 21:54:08 | Re: WAL & SHM principles |