Re: [HACKERS] Remove secondary checkpoint

From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Doesn't it also make crash recovery less robust?  The whole point
> of that mechanism is to be able to cope if the latest checkpoint
> record is unreadable.

If the latest checkpoint record is unreadable (the WAL segment/block/record is corrupt?), recovery from the previous
checkpointwould also stop at the latest checkpoint.  And we don't need to replay the WAL records between the previous
checkpointand the latest one, because their changes are already persisted when the latest checkpoint was taken.  So,
theuser should just do pg_resetxlog and start the database server when the recovery cannot find the latest checkpoint
recordand PANICs?
 

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa






-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers