| From: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Richard Schmidt <Richard(dot)Schmidt(at)metservice(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Pg_rewind cannot load history wal |
| Date: | 2018-08-04 14:54:36 |
| Message-ID: | EE81B078-37FE-43B3-8083-0BC78ACF0699@thebuild.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> On Aug 4, 2018, at 06:13, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> Well, since its creation we have the tool behave this way. I am not
> sure either that we can have pg_rewind create a checkpoint on the source
> node each time a rewind is done, as it may not be necessary, and it
> would enforce WAL segment recycling more than necessary, so if we were
> to back-patch something like that I am pretty much convinced that we
> would get complains from people already using the tool, with existing
> failover flows which are broken.
Would having pg_rewind do a checkpoint on the source actually cause anything to break, as opposed to a delay while the checkpoint completes? The current situation can create a corrupted target, which seems far worse than just slowing down pg_rewind.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof(at)thebuild(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-04 15:13:31 | Re: PANIC: could not open critical system index 2662 |
| Previous Message | C GG | 2018-08-04 14:45:59 | PANIC: could not open critical system index 2662 |