| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY FREEZE and setting PD_ALL_VISIBLE/visibility map bits |
| Date: | 2019-04-05 03:07:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20190405030729.3pzyw3f7eomvfwwx@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-04-05 00:06:04 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Apr-04, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2019-04-04 12:23:08 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Also, how is this code even close to correct?
> > > CheckAndSetPageAllVisible() modifies the buffer in a crucial way, and
> > > there's no WAL logging? Without even a comment arguing why that's OK (I
> > > don't think it is)?
> >
> > Peter Geoghegan just reminded me over IM that there's actually logging
> > inside log_heap_visible(), called from visibilitymap_set(). Still lacks
> > a critical section though.
>
> Hmm, isn't there already a critical section in visibilitymap_set itself?
There is, but the proposed code sets all visible on the page, and marks
the buffer dirty, before calling visibilitymap_set.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2019-04-05 03:09:16 | Re: speeding up planning with partitions |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-04-05 03:06:04 | Re: COPY FREEZE and setting PD_ALL_VISIBLE/visibility map bits |