From: | Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why is a newly created index contains the invalid LSN? |
Date: | 2016-08-26 15:46:42 |
Message-ID: | 4361c8ae-c4a9-402a-8ea7-8dc3cc2da69e@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Yury Zhuravlev
> <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> Hello hackers.
>>
>> I have a small question. While working on an incremental
>> backup I noticed a
>> strange thing.
>> Newly created index is contains the invalid LSN (0/0).
>> Exmaple: ...
>
> For some of the indexes like btree which are built outside shared
> buffers, we don't write WAL unless wal_level >= REPLICA. I think
> Robert has explained it very well how we handle the crash recovery
> situation for such indexes. However, for some other indexes which
> don't bypass shared buffers like BRIN, GIN we do write WAL for such
> cases as well, so you must see LSN for those type of indexes. I am
> less sure, if there will be any problem, if don't write WAL for those
> indexes as well when wal_level < REPLICA.
>
Thanks all.
Now understand LSN strongly connected with WAL.
However how difficult put last system LSN instead 0?
It's not so important but will allow make use LSN more consistent.
--
Yury Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-08-26 15:53:21 | Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog |
Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2016-08-26 15:33:58 | Re: Missing checks when malloc returns NULL... |