From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rob Butler <crodster2k(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Problem with PITR recovery |
Date: | 2005-04-20 22:13:33 |
Message-ID: | 6205.1114035213@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, this still begs the question of why we are bothering.
>> I disagree with the goal in this particular case anyhow: I do not
>> think it's necessary, safe, nor sane for a shutdown to try to archive
>> the last XLOG segment. Even if we fixed the xlog mechanism to end the
>> file there, I really have a problem with the idea that the archiver
>> should try to start a fresh archiving cycle at shutdown.
> Doing the archive at server shutdown eliminates one of the "must
> document" items, so the system behaves more predictably that it does
> not. It is not required --- it is a usability issue.
No, it just replaces a documentation issue with a reliability issue.
We'd have to consider what to say about the prospect that the archiver
is unable to archive that last segment, is kill -9'd by init at some
critical point in the process, etc etc. I think it's just a bad idea
to promise people that shutting down the postmaster will have any such
effect.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-20 22:17:40 | Re: Postgres: pg_hba.conf, md5, pg_shadow, encrypted passwords |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-20 22:10:42 | Re: Postgres: pg_hba.conf, md5, pg_shadow, encrypted passwords |