Re: Remove secondary checkpoint

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remove secondary checkpoint
Date: 2017-10-30 13:27:37
Message-ID: CA+TgmobRh33vK+=nhZbza6fW7Xx4q+=S8gE_7CCqqBREDduZ8Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I think it does the contrary. The current mechanism is, in my opinion,
> downright dangerous:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160201235854.GO8743@awork2.anarazel.de

A sort of middle way would be to keep the secondary checkpoint around
but never try to replay from that point, or only if a specific flag is
provided.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-10-30 13:34:41 Re: Remove secondary checkpoint
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2017-10-30 13:21:20 Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11