Re: Proposed WAL changes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers)
Subject Re: Proposed WAL changes
Date
Msg-id 20010307131052.J624@store.zembu.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposed WAL changes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 11:09:25AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev@sectorbase.com> writes:
> >> * Store two past checkpoint locations, not just one, in pg_control.
> >> On startup, we fall back to the older checkpoint if the newer one
> >> is unreadable.  Also, a physical copy of the newest checkpoint record
> 
> > And what to do if older one is unreadable too?
> > (Isn't it like using 2 x CRC32 instead of CRC64 ? -:))
> 
> Then you lose --- but two checkpoints gives you twice the chance of
> recovery (probably more, actually, since it's much more likely that
> the previous checkpoint will have reached disk safely).

Actually far more: if the checkpoints are minutes apart, even the 
worst disk drive will certainly have flushed any blocks written for 
the earlier checkpoint.

--
Nathan Myers
ncm@zembu.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alex Pilosov
Date:
Subject: RE: Proposed WAL changes
Next
From: ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers)
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL & SHM principles