Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> 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.
If you still find the frequent pg_control updates unacceptable, we could always move minRecoveryPoint to a file of its own.. -- 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
