| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work |
| Date: | 2015-09-29 11:53:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYQB34mFsHzqmJC4Kc=JcZ6-Rm1niMa2NRpggeR5zQP4g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> Maybe I'm confused, but I thought the whole purpose of this was to get rid
> of the risk associated with that calculation in favor of explicit truncation
> boundaries in the WAL log.
Yes. But if the master hasn't been updated yet, then we still need to
do something based on a calculation.
> Even if that's not the case, ISTM that being big and in your face about a
> potential data corruption bug is a good thing, as long as the DBA has a way
> to "hit the snooze button".
Panicking the standby because the master hasn't been updated does not
seem like a good thing to me in any way.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2015-09-29 11:54:12 | Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-29 11:51:08 | Re: Comment update to pathnode.c |