| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Point in Time Recovery |
| Date: | 2004-07-07 13:17:31 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D134@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Well, Tom does seem to have something with regard to StartUpIds. I feel
> it is easier to force a new timeline by adding a very large number to
> the LogId IF, and only if, we have performed an archive recovery. That
> way, we do not change at all the behaviour of the system for people that
> choose not to implement archive_mode.
Imho you should take a close look at StartUpId, I think it is exactly this
"large number". Maybe you can add +2 to intentionally leave a hole.
Once you increment, I think it is very essential to checkpoint and double
check pg_control, cause otherwise a crashrecovery would read the wrong xlogs.
> Should we implement timelines?
Yes :-)
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-07-07 13:20:02 | Re: plperl security |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-07-07 12:53:27 | Re: Postgresql on SAN |