On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My worry is that there has not been an exhaustive analysis. "Almost > correct" and "probably correct" is not the same thing as "correct". We > need to look through all of the changes that occur at the end of > recovery to be certain we can do this. Luckily normal data blocks don't > know anything about such state changes, so that is a good start. We must > look at
It's reasonable worry. Thanks a lot, Simon. I will examine it next time (probably 8.5). And, I'd like to clear up which recovery method is safe now. Althogh I think as follows, is it right? Safe (proved to be safe): - PITR with a base backup. That is, we don't always need a fresh backup when setting up, and can make the standby catch up by using an old or fresh backup. If we can use an old backup, I think it might be worth changing pg_standby to get over the gap of timeline. What is your opinion? - PITR with a database cluster including a recovery restart point. That is, we can make the standby catch up without a base backup after it fails. Not safe (further examination is needed): - PITR with a database cluster not including a recovery restart point. That is, we cannot make the standby (old primary) catch up without a base backup. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
