| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com, andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Date: | 2019-05-25 02:33:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20190525023332.GE1624191@rfd.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 03:54:30PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Following this direction, the attached PoC works *at least for*
> the wal_optimization TAP tests, but doing pending flush not in
> smgr but in relcache.
This task, syncing files created in the current transaction, is not the kind
of task normally assigned to a cache. We already have a module, storage.c,
that maintains state about files created in the current transaction. Why did
you use relcache instead of storage.c?
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:29:48PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> This is a tidier version of the patch.
> - Move the substantial work to table/index AMs.
>
> Each AM can decide whether to support WAL skip or not.
> Currently heap and nbtree support it.
Why would an AM find it important to disable WAL skip?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-05-25 02:42:59 | Re: Confusing error message for REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-25 00:53:47 | Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays |