> > One issue about too many checkpoints in pg_control, is that you then
> > need to keep more logs, and in my pgbench tests the log space was a
> > real issue, even for the one checkpoint case. I think a utility to
> > recreate a busted pg_control would add a lot more stability, than one
> > more
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> At least one of my concerns (single point of failure) would require a
> >> change to the layout of pg_control, which would force initdb anyway.
>
> > Was that the "only one checkpoint back in time in pg_control" issue ?
>
> Yes.
Is chan
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> At least one of my concerns (single point of failure) would require a
>> change to the layout of pg_control, which would force initdb anyway.
> Was that the "only one checkpoint back in time in pg_control" issue ?
Yes.
> One issue about too
> Since there is not a separate WAL version stamp, introducing one now
> would certainly force an initdb. I don't mind adding one if you think
> it's useful; another 4 bytes in pg_control won't hurt anything. But
> it's not going to save anyone's bacon on this cycle.
Yes, if initdb, that would
