Re: xlog loose ends, continued

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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