Tom Lane wrote: > The behavior you seem to have in mind would be completely disastrous > from a performance standpoint, as we'd be writing and fsyncing > pg_control constantly during a recovery.
Please define "constantly". We discussed that part of the patch here: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/498ab55d.50...@enterprisedb.com > I wouldn't consider that a > good idea from a reliability standpoint either --- the more writes to > pg_control, the more risk of fatal corruption of that file. We certainly update it an order of magnitude more often than before, but I don't think that's an issue. We're talking about archive recovery here. It's not like in normal operation where a corrupt pg_control file means that you lose your data. It will stop the server from starting up, but there's many other files that can be corrupt in a way that causes recovery to fail or stop too early. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
