| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clean shutdown and warm standby |
| Date: | 2009-04-27 11:43:05 |
| Message-ID: | 49F59A49.2020409@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> It's not safe to write WAL after the checkpoint, as RequestXLogSwitch()
>> does. After restart, the system will start inserting WAL from the checkpoint
>> redo point, which is just before the XLOG_SWITCH record, and will overwrite
>> it.
>
> Since, in this case, the WAL file including XLOG_SWITCH exists
> in archive, I don't think that it's unsafe, i.e. XLOG_SWITCH would
> be treated as the last applied record and not be overwritten. WAL
> records would start to be inserted from the subsequent file (with
> new timeline).
It will be overwritten in a normal non-archive-recovery startup.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2009-04-27 12:25:49 | Re: Clean shutdown and warm standby |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2009-04-27 11:28:12 | Re: Clean shutdown and warm standby |