On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:09:59PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I have to agree with Tom here. If you force pg_rewind to replay more >>> WAL records from a checkpoint older than the checkpoint prior to where >>> WAL has forked at promotion then you have a risk of losing data. >> >> Oh! I see now. Good point. > > Something that would address the issue would be to enforce a segment > switch after each checkpoint, but that's a high price to pay on mostly > idle systems with large WAL segments, which is not appealing either, and > this even if the checkpoint skip logic has been fixed in v10 with the > concept of "important" WAL records.
If the system is mostly idle would it really matter that much? cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
