Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Fujii Masao
Тема Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2
Дата
Msg-id c85599fe-859e-308a-2393-6c1c4f533117@oss.nttdata.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2
Список pgsql-hackers

On 2020/04/21 17:15, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:26:16 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in
>> Patch attached. I will add this into the first CF for v14.
> 
> -            if (!fast_promoted)
> +            if (!promoted)
>                   RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_END_OF_RECOVERY |
>                                     CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE |
>                                     CHECKPOINT_WAIT);
> 
> If we don't find the checkpoint record just before, we don't insert
> End-Of-Recovery record then run an immediate chekpoint.  I think if we
> nuke the non-fast promotion, shouldn't we insert the EOR record even
> in that case?

I'm not sure if that's safe. What if the server crashes before the checkpoint
completes in that case? Since the last checkpoint record is not available,
the subsequent crash recovery will fail. This would lead to that the server
will never start up. Right? Currently ISTM that end-of-recovery-checkpoint
is executed to avoid such trouble in that case.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Juan José Santamaría Flecha
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PG compilation error with Visual Studio 2015/2017/2019
Следующее
От: The Dude
Дата:
Сообщение: [SSPI] Windows group support