Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@Wien.Spardat.at> writes:
>> At least one of my concerns (single point of failure) would require a
>> change to the layout of pg_control, which would force initdb anyway.
> Was that the "only one checkpoint back in time in pg_control" issue ?
Yes.
> One issue about too many checkpoints in pg_control, is that you then
> need to keep more logs, and in my pgbench tests the log space was a
> real issue, even for the one checkpoint case. I think a utility to
> recreate a busted pg_control would add a lot more stability, than one
> more checkpoint in pg_control.
Well, there is a big difference between 1 and 2 checkpoints stored in
pg_control. I don't intend to go further than 2. But I disagree about
a log-reset utility being more useful than an extra checkpoint. The
utility would be for manual recovery after a disaster, and it wouldn't
offer 100% recovery: you couldn't be sure that the last few transactions
had been applied atomically, ie, all or none. (Perhaps pg_log got
updated to show them committed, but not all of their tuple changes made
it to disk; how will you know?) If you can back up to the prior
checkpoint and then roll forward, you *do* have a shot at guaranteeing
a consistent database state after loss of the primary checkpoint.
> We should probably have additional criteria to time, that can trigger a
> checkpoint, like N logs filled since last checkpoint.
Perhaps. I don't have time to work on that now, but we can certainly
improve the strategy in future releases.
regards, tom lane
