| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | out-of-date comment in CreateRestartPoint() |
| Date: | 2010-05-26 13:16:45 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimsgj3VuAWIj_aQnZr17ku07dBqURtEDTHxp9aK@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
This comment obviously requires adjustment now that HS is committed.
The obvious way to change it is to replace "when we get hot standby
capability" with "when running in Hot Standby mode", but I'm not clear
whether that's all that's required.
/*
* If the last checkpoint record we've replayed is already our last
* restartpoint, we can't perform a new restart point. We still update
* minRecoveryPoint in that case, so that if this is a shutdown restart
* point, we won't start up earlier than before. That's not strictly
* necessary, but when we get hot standby capability, it would be rather
* weird if the database opened up for read-only connections at a
* point-in-time before the last shutdown. Such time travel is still
* possible in case of immediate shutdown, though.
*
* We don't explicitly advance minRecoveryPoint when we do create a
* restartpoint. It's assumed that flushing the buffers will
do that as a
* side-effect.
*/
Thoughts?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: out-of-date comment in CreateRestartPoint() |
| Date: | 2010-05-26 13:54:49 |
| Message-ID: | 4BFD2829.9030803@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 26/05/10 16:16, Robert Haas wrote:
> This comment obviously requires adjustment now that HS is committed.
> The obvious way to change it is to replace "when we get hot standby
> capability" with "when running in Hot Standby mode", but I'm not clear
> whether that's all that's required.
I think that's all that's required.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: out-of-date comment in CreateRestartPoint() |
| Date: | 2010-05-27 00:39:21 |
| Message-ID: | 4BFDBF39.2040605@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 26/05/10 16:54, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 26/05/10 16:16, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This comment obviously requires adjustment now that HS is committed.
>> The obvious way to change it is to replace "when we get hot standby
>> capability" with "when running in Hot Standby mode", but I'm not clear
>> whether that's all that's required.
>
> I think that's all that's required.
Committed. I changed it to "when hot standby is enabled".
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com