From: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Purpose of wal_init_zero |
Date: | 2025-01-15 14:59:04 |
Message-ID: | 6787cd38.050a0220.2855f9.97cc@mx.google.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 09:12:17AM +0000, Andy Fan wrote:
> I can understand that "the file space has really been allocated", but
> why do we care about this?
>
> One reason I can think of is it has something with "out-of-disk-space"
> sistuation, even though what's the benefit of it since we can't do
> anything in such case anyway no matter the wal space is pre-alocated or
> not?
My understanding was that if we have pre-allocated wal space (and
re-cycle already used wal files), we can still write wal records into
that pre-allocated space and still issue changes to data files as long
as we don't need to enlarge any. So an out-of-space situation is less
bad in that case than if we fail to write WAL with ENOSPC.
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2025-01-15 15:51:54 | Re: Purpose of wal_init_zero |
Previous Message | Yura Sokolov | 2025-01-15 14:43:46 | Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2 |