On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_li...@yahoo.it> wrote: >> I think >> we need a detailed design document for how this is all going to work. >> We need to not only handle the master properly but also handle the >> slave properly. Consider, for example, the case where the slave >> begins to replay the transaction, reaches a restartpoint after >> replaying some of the new pages, and then crashes. If the subsequent >> restart from the restartpoint blows away the main relation fork, we're >> hosed. I fear we're plunging into implementation details without >> having a good overall design in mind first. > > As I said in my first post, I'm basing the patch on the post: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00315.php > > > So I assumed the design was ok (except for the "stray file around > on a standby" case, which has been discussed earlier on this thread).
Well, I sort of assumed the design was OK, too, but the more we talk about this WAL-logging stuff, the less convinced I am that I really understand the problem. :-( -- 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
