On Thursday, May 24, 2012 08:32:47 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > The control file currently is not a very good match because of the > > current requirement of staying below 512 bytes. If we would include the > > list of running xacts that wouldn't be enough. > > I wondered before if there is more to do to fix that then to do the > > atomic write();fsync();rename();fsync(); dance. I don't see a problem > > with the cost of that personally... > > The reason for keeping it to one sector is that you're screwed if the > file is broken, so the fewer failure modes the better. Yea, sure. But given the amount of software that depends on the above sequence to work correctly I don't really see much of a problem...
> I'm not sure I believe that we can make a recovery resume from an > arbitrary point in WAL anyway, or that it would be worth the trouble. > Can't we just resume from the last restartpoint? Well, with a decent sized checkpoint_segments getting up2date can take quite a noticeable amount of time... Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers