Re: bug of recovery?

On 04.10.2011 09:43, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I don't think this should use the rm_safe_restartpoint machinery. As you
>>> said, it's not tied to any specific resource manager. And I've actually been
>>> thinking that we will get rid of rm_safe_restartpoint altogether in the
>>> future. The two things that still use it are the b-tree and gin, and I'd
>>> like to change both of those to not require any post-recovery cleanup step
>>> to finish multi-page operations, similar to what I did with GiST in 9.1.
>>
>> I thought that was quite neat doing it that way, but there's no
>> specific reason to do it that way I guess. If you're happy to rewrite
>> the patch then I guess we're OK.
>>
>> I certainly would like to get rid of rm_safe_restartpoint in the
>> longer term, hopefully sooner.
>
> Though Heikki might be already working on that,...

Just haven't gotten around to it. It's a fair amount of work with little
user-visible benefit.

> anyway,
> the attached patch is the version which doesn't use rm_safe_restartpoint
> machinery.

Thanks, committed.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com