On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> 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
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers