On Thursday, May 24, 2012 08:32:47 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > The control file currently is not a very good match because of the
> > current requirement of staying below 512 bytes. If we would include the
> > list of running xacts that wouldn't be enough.
> > I wondered before if there is more to do to fix that then to do the
> > atomic write();fsync();rename();fsync(); dance. I don't see a problem
> > with the cost of that personally...
>
> The reason for keeping it to one sector is that you're screwed if the
> file is broken, so the fewer failure modes the better.
Yea, sure. But given the amount of software that depends on the above sequence
to work correctly I don't really see much of a problem...
> I'm not sure I believe that we can make a recovery resume from an
> arbitrary point in WAL anyway, or that it would be worth the trouble.
> Can't we just resume from the last restartpoint?
Well, with a decent sized checkpoint_segments getting up2date can take quite a
noticeable amount of time...
Andres