On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 11:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 10:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > >> It seems dangerous to write a WAL record after the shutdown checkpoint. > >> It will be overwritten by subsequent startup, which is a recipe for > >> trouble. > > > > I've said its a corner case and not worth spending time on. I'm putting > > it in at your request. If it's not correct before and not correct after, > > where exactly do you want it? > > I don't know. Perhaps it should go between the REDO pointer of the > shutdown checkpoint and the checkpoint record itself. Or maybe the > information should be included in the checkpoint record itself.
I've implemented this but it requires us to remove two checks - one at shutdown and one at startup on a shutdown checkpoint. I'm not happy doing that and would like to put them back. I'd rather just skip this for now. It's a minor case anyway and there's nothing stopping writing their own RunningXactData records with a function, if it is needed. I can add a function for that. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
