On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 14:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
That's a good point; don't we recover files under names like
RECOVERYXLOG, not under names that could possibly conflict with regular
WAL files?
Yes. But
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 19:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 14:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
pg_standby can use ln command to restore an archived file,
which might destroy the archived file as follows.
1) pg_standby creates the symlink to the
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
That's a good point; don't we recover files under names like
RECOVERYXLOG, not under names that could possibly conflict with regular
WAL
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
Yes, the old xlog itself is not used again. But, the *old file* might
be recycled and used later. The case that I'm looking at is that the
symlink to a temporary
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
Yes, the old xlog itself is not used again. But, the *old file*
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 14:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
pg_standby can use ln command to restore an archived file,
which might destroy the archived file as follows.
1) pg_standby creates the symlink to the archived file '102'
2) '102' is applied
3) the next file '103' doesn't exist and the
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
err...I don't see *any* problem at all, since pg_standby does not do
step (1) in the way you say and therefore never does step (5). Any links
created are explicitly deleted in all cases at the end of recovery.
That's a good point; don't we recover
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 14:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
pg_standby can use ln command to restore an archived file,
which might destroy the archived file as follows.
1) pg_standby creates the symlink to the archived file '102'
2) '102' is applied
3) the next file '103' doesn't
Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
err...I don't see *any* problem at all, since pg_standby does not do
step (1) in the way you say and therefore never does step (5). Any links
created are explicitly deleted in all cases at the end of recovery.
That's a good point;
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
That's a good point; don't we recover files under names like
RECOVERYXLOG, not under names that could possibly conflict with regular
WAL files?
Yes. But we rename RECOVERYXLOG to 00010057 or
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
pg_standby can use ln command to restore an archived file,
which might destroy the archived file as follows.
Does it matter? pg_standby's source area wouldn't normally be an
archive in the real sense of the word, it's just a temporary staging
area
Tom Lane wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
pg_standby can use ln command to restore an archived file,
which might destroy the archived file as follows.
Does it matter? pg_standby's source area wouldn't normally be an
archive in the real sense of the word, it's just a temporary
* Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com [090601 10:56]:
Tom Lane wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
pg_standby can use ln command to restore an archived file,
which might destroy the archived file as follows.
Does it matter? pg_standby's source area wouldn't
Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
* Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com [090601 10:56]:
Tom Lane wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
pg_standby can use ln command to restore an archived file,
which might destroy the archived file as follows.
Does it matter? pg_standby's
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
I wonder if we should just remove the symlink option from pg_standby.
I was considering suggesting that too...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
pg_standby can use ln command to restore an archived file,
which might destroy the archived file as follows.
Does it matter? pg_standby's source area wouldn't normally be an
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
If so, it might be deleted after triggering the warm-standby. But, we cannot
remove it because the latest xlog file which is required for normal recovery
might exist in it. This is another undesirable scenario. Is this problem?
What recovery? In the
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
If so, it might be deleted after triggering the warm-standby. But, we cannot
remove it because the latest xlog file which is required for normal recovery
might exist in it. This
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
Yes, the old xlog itself is not used again. But, the *old file* might
be recycled and used later. The case that I'm looking at is that the
symlink to a temporary area is recycled. Am I missing something?
Actually, I think the right fix for that would
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
Yes, the old xlog itself is not used again. But, the *old file* might
be recycled and used later. The case that I'm looking at is that the
symlink to a temporary area is recycled.
Hi,
pg_standby can use ln command to restore an archived file,
which might destroy the archived file as follows.
1) pg_standby creates the symlink to the archived file '102'
2) '102' is applied
3) the next file '103' doesn't exist and the trigger file is created
4) '102' is re-fetched
5) at the
21 matches
Mail list logo
