Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hannu Krosing
Subject Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date
Msg-id 1120941211.4844.1.camel@fuji.krosing.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On R, 2005-07-08 at 14:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > I don't think we should care too much about indexes. We can rebuild
> > them...but losing heap sectors means *data loss*.

There might be some merit in idea to disabling WAL/PITR for indexes,
where one can accept some (and possibly a lot) time when recovering.

> If you're so concerned about *data loss* then none of this will be
> acceptable to you at all.  We are talking about going from a system
> that can actually survive torn-page cases to one that can only tell
> you whether you've lost data to such a case.  Arguing about the
> probability with which we can detect the loss seems beside the point.

-- 
Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: roles question
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: Must be owner to truncate?