Re: checkpoint clarifications needed

From: Tom DalPozzo <t(dot)dalpozzo(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: checkpoint clarifications needed
Date: 2017-01-09 22:47:52
Message-ID: CAK77FCQg_mZjvsJr6s=-bdQtq2pXA7YoVYHsSPDkGHaAkAcW6w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

>
> Hi, I had already read that doc but I can't answer clearly to my
>> questions 2,4 and 5.
>>
>
> The answer would seem to depend on what you consider 'a consistency state
> position'. Is it possible to be more explicit about what you mean?
>
>>
>> Hi, I meant a position such that, if you replay up to it, then the DB is
in a consistent state (transactions done entirely or not a t all...).
But, as Alvaro wrote, any position is ok
Thank you very much
Pupillo

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2017-01-09 22:54:11 Re: Improve PostGIS performance with 62 million rows?
Previous Message Tom DalPozzo 2017-01-09 22:45:41 Re: checkpoint clarifications needed