Tom Lane wrote:
[ back to dealing with this patch, finally ]

"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
While creating the patch, I've been thinking if it might be worthwile
to note that we just did recovery in the ShutdownCheckpoint
(or create a new checkpoint type RecoveryCheckpoint). This wouldl allow
for more error checking, because then the slave could check that
safe_restartpoint() is true for all ShutdownCheckpoints that were not
after recovering.

I concur that this is a good idea --- we should have a third checkpoint
record type that shows that a crash recovery occurred.  However, we can
probably only do that for 8.3 and beyond.  If we try to do it in
existing release branches then there's likelihood of trouble due to WAL
incompatibility between master and standby.  While we do advise people
to update their standbys first, I don't think it's worth risking such
problems just to add some more error checking.
Conclusion: we should apply Florian's patch as-is in 8.2, do something
morally equivalent in 8.1 and before, and invent a
CrashRecoveryCheckpoint record type in HEAD.

Sounds good.

Do you want me to code up such patches for 8.1 and 8.3 in the next days,
or is someone else already working on it?

greetings, Florian Pflug

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to