Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > I think it does the contrary. The current mechanism is, in my opinion, > > downright dangerous: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160201235854.go8...@awork2.anarazel.de > > A sort of middle way would be to keep the secondary checkpoint around > but never try to replay from that point, or only if a specific flag is > provided.
Why do you want to keep the secondary checkpoint? If there is no way to automatically start a recovery from the prior checkpoint, is it really possible to do the same manually? I think the only advantage of keeping it is that the WAL files are kept around for a little bit longer. But is that useful? Surely for any environment where you really care, you have a WAL archive somewhere, so it doesn't matter if files are removed from the primary's pg_xlog dir. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
