Andres Freund <and...@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.
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?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
