pg_subtrans and WAL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: pg_subtrans and WAL
Date: 2004-08-10 16:24:06
Message-ID: 29088.1092155046@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

My discovery last night of a WAL synchronization error in pg_clog led me
to take a look at pg_subtrans too. I soon realized that in fact we are
not WAL-logging pg_subtrans updates at all: subtransaction start sets up
a pg_subtrans entry but makes no WAL entry for this action.

Seems like this is a problem.

It may be that we do not care because pg_subtrans doesn't have to be
valid after a crash, but I haven't seen any proof of that theory.
And if that theory is correct, then it is a seriously bad design to be
using the same code infrastructure for both pg_clog and pg_subtrans.
Every fsync on pg_subtrans is wasted effort if that is going to be our
approach. We should in fact just delete pg_subtrans and re-init it to
zeroes during postmaster start...

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-08-10 16:42:20 Re: fsync vs open_sync (more info)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-08-10 16:17:11 We have got a serious problem with pg_clog/WAL synchronization