Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I think it does the contrary. The current mechanism is, in my opinion,
> > downright dangerous:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160201235854.GO8743@awork2.anarazel.de
>
> A sort of middle way would be to keep the secondary checkpoint around
> but never try to replay from that point, or only if a specific flag is
> provided.
Why do you want to keep the secondary checkpoint? If there is no way to
automatically start a recovery from the prior checkpoint, is it really
possible to do the same manually? I think the only advantage of keeping
it is that the WAL files are kept around for a little bit longer. But
is that useful? Surely for any environment where you really care, you
have a WAL archive somewhere, so it doesn't matter if files are removed
from the primary's pg_xlog dir.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers