From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Avoiding shutdown checkpoint at failover |
Date: | 2012-01-28 13:57:58 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLgsj78Eeh5dqZBC0kNWdcVmDJys_DF6-V7LMM0=WnknA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> One thing I would like to ask is that why you think walreceiver is more
> appropriate for writing XLOG_END_OF_RECOVERY record than startup
> process. I was thinking the opposite, because if we do so, we might be
> able to skip the end-of-recovery checkpoint even in file-based log-shipping
> case.
Right now, WALReceiver has one code path/use case.
Startup has so many, its much harder to know whether we'll screw up one of them.
If we can add it in either place then I choose the simplest, most
relevant place. If the code is the same, we can move it around later.
Let me write the code and then we can think some more.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-01-28 14:55:04 | Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-28 13:52:52 | Re: CLOG contention, part 2 |