On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > 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
-- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
