On 02/06/2016 01:16 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 02/04/2016 09:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:

On 2016-02-02 09:56:40 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:

And there is no actual risk of data loss


More precise: what I mean here is that should an OS crash or a
power failure happen, we would fall back to recovery at next
restart, so we would not actually *lose* data.

Except that we actually can't perform the recovery properly
because we may not have the last WAL segment (or multiple
segments), so we can't replay the last batch of transactions. And
we don't even notice that.

Still the data is here... But well. I won't insist.

Huh? This thread started by an example how to cause loss of committed transactions. That fits my definition of "data loss" quite well.

Tomas, could you have a look at the latest patch I wrote? It would be
good to get fresh eyes on it. We could work on a version for ~9.4
once we have a clean approach for master/9.5.

Yep, I'll take a look - I've been out of office for the past 2 weeks, but I've been following the discussion and I agree with the changes discussed there (e.g. adding safe_rename and such).


Tomas Vondra                  http://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:

Reply via email to