On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 23:06 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > > On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 09:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Do we really need a checkpoint there at all?
> >
> > > "Timelines only change at shutdown checkpoints".
> >
> > Hmm. I *think* that that is just a debugging crosscheck rather than a
> > critical property. But yeah, it would take some close investigation,
> > which maybe isn't warranted if you have a less-invasive solution.
>
> OK, new patch, version 6. Some major differences to previous patch.
> Ready for serious review prior to commit. I will be performing further
> testing also.
Version 7
I've removed the concept of interrupting a restartpoint half way
through, I found a fault there. It was more ugly than the alternative
and less robust. The code now waits at the end of recovery if we are in
the middle of a restartpoint, but forces a do-it-more-quickly also. That
means we won't always get a fast start even though we skip the shutdown
checkpoint, but at least we're sure there's no chance of breakage
because of concurrent activiy, state changes etc..
I'm happy with this now.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support