| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Date: | 2016-09-01 10:16:23 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYTygPq_DmKMA0HSRYYTPdX2=h-y-FUA6t5ya_6Gy-TFA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I'd prefer a solution that was not dependent upon RmgrID at all.
>
> If there are various special cases that we need to cater for, ISTM
> they would be flaws in the existing WAL implementation rather than
> anything we would want to perpetuate. I hope we'll spend time fixing
> them rather than add loads of weird code to work around the
> imperfections.
>
> Underdocumented special case code is going to be unbelievably
> difficult to get right in the long term.
It seems to me that you may be conflating the issue of which changes
should be masked out as hints (which is, indeed, special case code,
whether underdocumented or not) with the issue of which rmgrs the user
may want to verify (which is just a case of matching the rmgr ID in
the WAL record against a list provided by the user, and is not special
case code at all).
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-09-01 10:42:10 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2016-09-01 09:55:33 | Re: PostgreSQL 10 kick-off |