| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jacky Leng <lengjianquan(at)163(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchiving is enabled |
| Date: | 2007-10-17 14:02:17 |
| Message-ID: | 471615E9.4040402@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> If you've got a better problem statement it would be good to get that
> right first before we discuss solutions.
Reusing a relfilenode of a deleted relation, before next checkpoint
following the commit of the deleting transaction, for an operation that
doesn't WAL log the contents of the new relation, leads to data loss on
recovery.
Or
Performing non-WAL logged operations on a relation file leads to a
truncated file on recovery, if the relfilenode of that file used to
belong to a relation that was dropped after the last checkpoint.
Happy?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-10-17 14:07:46 | Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal when WALarchiving is enabled |
| Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-10-17 13:59:43 | Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal when WALarchiving is enabled |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Volkan YAZICI | 2007-10-17 14:02:44 | Configurable Penalty Costs for Levenshtein |
| Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-10-17 13:59:43 | Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal when WALarchiving is enabled |