On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 02/04/2016 09:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >>> >>> On 2016-02-02 09:56:40 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >>>> >>>> And there is no actual risk of data loss >>> >>> >>> Huh? >> >> >> More precise: what I mean here is that should an OS crash or a power >> failure happen, we would fall back to recovery at next restart, so we >> would not actually *lose* data. > > > Except that we actually can't perform the recovery properly because we may > not have the last WAL segment (or multiple segments), so we can't replay the > last batch of transactions. And we don't even notice that.
Still the data is here... But well. I won't insist. Tomas, could you have a look at the latest patch I wrote? It would be good to get fresh eyes on it. We could work on a version for ~9.4 once we have a clean approach for master/9.5. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
