| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |