| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Make unlogged table resets detectable |
| Date: | 2021-06-08 13:18:43 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYQrK4iij0ZXGbM54nW2Nag73CdsWDCTNuXW--t+OTR1Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:46 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 02:56:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > +1. I'd support recording the time of the last crash recovery, as
> > well as having a counter. I think an LSN would not be as useful
> > as a timestamp.
>
> One could guess a timestamp based on a LSN, no? So I'd like to think
> the opposite actually: a LSN would be more useful than a timestamp.
One could also guess an LSN based on a timestamp, but I think in
either case one has to be a pretty good guesser. The rate at which WAL
is generated is hardly guaranteed to be uniform, and if you're looking
at a system for the first time you may have no idea what it is.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2021-06-08 13:40:06 | Re: automatically generating node support functions |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-06-08 13:15:08 | Re: pg14b1 stuck in lazy_scan_prune/heap_page_prune of pg_statistic |