> On Aug 4, 2018, at 06:13, Michael Paquier <michael@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Well, since its creation we have the tool behave this way. I am not > sure either that we can have pg_rewind create a checkpoint on the source > node each time a rewind is done, as it may not be necessary, and it > would enforce WAL segment recycling more than necessary, so if we were > to back-patch something like that I am pretty much convinced that we > would get complains from people already using the tool, with existing > failover flows which are broken. Would having pg_rewind do a checkpoint on the source actually cause anything to break, as opposed to a delay while the checkpoint completes? The current situation can create a corrupted target, which seems far worse than just slowing down pg_rewind. -- -- Christophe Pettus xof@xxxxxxxxxxxx
