
> Since there is not a separate WAL version stamp, introducing one now
> would certainly force an initdb.  I don't mind adding one if you think
> it's useful; another 4 bytes in pg_control won't hurt anything.  But
> it's not going to save anyone's bacon on this cycle.

Yes, if initdb, that would probably be a good idea.
Imho the initdb now is not a real issue, since all beta testers
know that for serious issues there might be an initdb after beta started.

> 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 ?
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.

We should probably have additional criteria to time, that can trigger a 
checkpoint, like N logs filled since last checkpoint. I do not think 
reducing the checkpoint interval is a solution for once in a while heavy activity.

Andreas

Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:46:50 +0100 
Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@Wien.Spardat.at>
AW: WAL & RC1 status 
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

Mon, 05 Mar 2001 11:13:52 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: AW: WAL & RC1 status 
> 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.

Is changing pg_control the thing that is going to require the initdb?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:25:00 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: AW: WAL & RC1 status