I'm interested in point-in-time-recovery (or archive recovery) too.
I'm wondering current implementation of CHECKPOINT is whether "SHARP"
or "FUZZY" checkopint. If it's a "SHARP" one, it would be a serious
performance bottle neck according to the Gray's transaction book. Does
anybody know anything about that?
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:35:09 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
sharp or fuzzy checkpoint?
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> I'm interested in point-in-time-recovery (or archive recovery) too.
> I'm wondering current implementation of CHECKPOINT is whether "SHARP"
> or "FUZZY" checkopint. If it's a "SHARP" one, it would be a serious
> performance bottle neck according to the Gray's transaction book. Does
> anybody know anything about that?

We have a FUZZY checkpoint because we continue processing during
the checkpoint period.  In fact, we can add WAL files during the
checkpoint activity.

-- 
  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

Sat, 23 Feb 2002 23:00:05 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: sharp or fuzzy checkpoint?