Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 13 February 2013 09:04, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>> To be precise, we'd need to update the control file on every XLogFlush(),
>> like we do during archive recovery. That would indeed be unacceptable from a
>> performance point of view. Updating the control file that often would also
>> be bad for robustness.
> If those arguments make sense, then why don't they apply to recovery as well?
In plain old crash recovery, don't the checks on whether to apply WAL
records based on LSN take care of this?
regards, tom lane