On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>> No intention of doing that. This change allows people to see what the
>> dependency actually is once the bug has been fixed. Change needs to
>> start from here, not from where we were before.
>
> Well, actually, now that I've looked at the patch I think it's starting
> from a fundamentally wrong position anyway. Checkpoint records are a
> completely wrong mechanism for transmitting this data to slaves, because
> a checkpoint is emitted *after* we do something, not *before* we do it.
> In particular it's ludicrous to be looking at shutdown checkpoints to
> try to determine whether the subsequent WAL will meet the slave's
> requirements. There's no connection at all between what the GUC state
> was at shutdown and what it might be after starting again.
>
> A design that might work is
> (1) store the active value of wal_mode in pg_control (but NOT as part of
> the last-checkpoint-record image).
> (2) invent a new WAL record type that is transmitted when we change
> wal_mode.
>
> Then, slaves could check whether the master's wal_mode is high enough
> by looking at pg_control when they start plus any wal_mode_change
> records they come across.
>
> If we did this then we could get rid of those WAL record types that were
> added to signify that information had been omitted from WAL at specific
> times.
<dons project manager hat>
I notice that Heikki's patch doesn't include doing the above. Should
we? If so, who's going to do it?
...Robert
