Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery infrastructure

2009-01-27 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 20:11 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 17:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Hmm, I think we have small issue if the last WAL segment restored from the archive is an incomplete one: All normal archive recoveri

Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery infrastructure

2009-01-27 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 20:11 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 17:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > >> Hmm, I think we have small issue if the last WAL segment restored from > >> the archive is an incomplete one: > > > > All normal archive rec

Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery infrastructure

2009-01-27 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 17:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Hmm, I think we have small issue if the last WAL segment restored from the archive is an incomplete one: All normal archive recoveries have "complete" WAL files, since an xlog switch record jumps past missing entr

Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery infrastructure

2009-01-27 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 17:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > Just think standard-online-checkpoint and it all fits. > > Exactly that made me wonder why the first checkpoint needs to be any > different. Not really following you to be honest, assuming this was a separate point to the other

Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery infrastructure

2009-01-27 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 17:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Hmm, I think we have small issue if the last WAL segment restored from > the archive is an incomplete one: All normal archive recoveries have "complete" WAL files, since an xlog switch record jumps past missing entries at the end of

Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery infrastructure

2009-01-27 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Regarding this comment: + /* +* Prior to 8.4 we wrote a Shutdown Checkpoint at the end of recovery. +* This could add minutes to the startup time, so we want bgwriter +* to perform it. This then frees

Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery infrastructure

2009-01-27 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Regarding this comment: > > > + /* > > +* Prior to 8.4 we wrote a Shutdown Checkpoint at the end of recovery. > > +* This could add minutes to the startup time, so we want bgwriter > > +* to perform it. This then frees t

[HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery infrastructure

2009-01-27 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Regarding this comment: + /* +* Prior to 8.4 we wrote a Shutdown Checkpoint at the end of recovery. +* This could add minutes to the startup time, so we want bgwriter +* to perform it. This then frees the Startup process to complete so we can +* allow transactions and WAL inser