From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #4879: bgwriter fails to fsync the file in recovery mode |
Date: | 2009-06-25 22:09:35 |
Message-ID: | 7095.1245967775@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> AFAICS the problem Heikki is worried about exists 8.2+. If you stop
>> recovery, edit recovery.conf to an earlier recovery target and then
>> re-run recovery then it is possible that data that would not exist until
>> after the (new) recovery point has made its way to disk. The code in 8.4
>> does a few things to improve that but the base problem persists and
>> revoking code won't change that. We should describe the issue in the
>> docs and leave it at that - there is no particular reason to believe
>> anybody would want to do such a thing.
> The way I've bumped into that is when playing with pg_standby:
> [ different scenario *not* involving any explicit recovery target ]
Okay, I misunderstood that code as being intended to prevent some
scenario that was new with Hot Standby. I still think it's a bad
solution though because of the large number of pg_control writes it
will cause. I agree that the code can be made to work in connection
with the fixes for the immediate bugs, but I am not convinced that we
want it there in its current form.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-06-25 22:14:03 | Re: BUG #4879: bgwriter fails to fsync the file in recovery mode |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-06-25 21:53:36 | Re: BUG #4879: bgwriter fails to fsync the file in recovery mode |