| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, bgrimm(at)zaeon(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously chec kpointed |
| Date: | 2002-03-13 22:00:56 |
| Message-ID: | 11552.1016056856@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
> It seems safe to do NOT write WAL record if sequence
> LSN > system RedoRecPtr because of checkpoint started after our
> check would finish only after writing to disk sequence buffer with
> proper last_value and log_cnt (nextval keeps lock on sequence buffer).
Mmm ... maybe. Is this safe if a checkpoint is currently in progress?
Seems like you could look at RedoRecPtr and decide you are okay, but you
really are not if checkpointer has already dumped sequence' disk
buffer and will later set RedoRecPtr to a value beyond the old LSN.
In that case you should have emitted a WAL record ... but you didn't.
Considering that we've found two separate bugs in this stuff in the past
week, I think that we ought to move in the direction of making it
simpler and more reliable, not even-more-complicated. Is it really
worth all this trouble to avoid making a WAL record for each nextval()
call?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-13 22:29:08 | Re: Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously chec kpointed |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-03-13 21:54:34 | Re: referential constraint bug |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ian Barwick | 2002-03-13 22:23:08 | Re: Archives |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2002-03-13 21:39:49 | Re: select max(column) not using index |