On 2017-10-30 10:10:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > I was mostly just thinking out loud, listing another option rather > > than advocating for it. > > FWIW, I just wanted the question to be debated and resolved properly. > > After rereading the thread Andres pointed to, I thought of a hazard > that I think Andres alluded to, but didn't spell out explicitly: > if we can't read the primary checkpoint, and then back up to a > secondary one and replay as much of WAL as we can read, we may well > be left with an inconsistent database.
Exactly. > I'm content now that removing the secondary checkpoint is an OK > decision. (This isn't a review of Simon's patch, though.) I wonder if we shouldn't add a pg_resetxlog option that sets the checkpoint to start from to a certain LSN. For the few cases where there's actual data recovery needed that's a lot more useful than randomly using checkpoint - 1. And it's an explicit expert only thing, without costing everyone. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
