Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> writes:
> Well, no-one's complained about the performance. From a robustness point
> of view, it might be good to keep the minRecoveryPoint value in a
> separate file, for example, to avoid rewriting the control file that
> often. Then again, why fix it when it's not broken.
It would only be broken if someone interrupted a crash recovery
mid-flight and tried to establish a recovery stop point before the end
of WAL, no? Why don't we just forbid that case? This would either be
the same as, or a small extension of, the pg_control state vs existence
of recovery.conf error check that was just discussed.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
