Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> The behavior you seem to have in mind would be completely disastrous >> from a performance standpoint, as we'd be writing and fsyncing >> pg_control constantly during a recovery.
> Please define "constantly". We discussed that part of the patch here: > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/498ab55d.50...@enterprisedb.com Okay, after reading the code a bit more I found this: /* * To avoid having to update the control file too often, we update it * all the way to the last record being replayed, even though 'lsn' * would suffice for correctness. */ which should alleviate the too-many-writes syndrome. Never mind that complaint then. (But shouldn't there be an Assert that this is >= lsn?) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
