| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
| Date: | 2005-07-09 20:33:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1120941211.4844.1.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On R, 2005-07-08 at 14:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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(at)skype(dot)net>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-07-09 20:43:52 | Re: Must be owner to truncate? |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2005-07-09 19:17:37 | Re: roles question |