From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums |
Date: | 2013-05-07 17:20:48 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZQYa2w9RKwWnv_u4ku0cKNrSR_EgoqKhCcRZUYa6mvhw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 15:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Regardless, you have a reasonable claim that my patch had effects that
>> > were not necessary. I have attached a draft patch to remedy that. Only
>> > rudimentary testing was done.
>>
>> This looks reasonable to me.
>
> Can you please explain the scenario that loses many VM bits at once
> during a crash, and results in a bunch of already-all-visible heap pages
> being dirtied for no reason?
Hmm. Rereading your last email, I see your point: since we now have
HEAP_XLOG_VISIBLE, this is much less of an issue than it would have
been before. I'm still not convinced that simplifying that code is a
good idea, but maybe it doesn't really hurt us much in practice.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | bricklen | 2013-05-07 17:23:51 | Re: pg_dump --snapshot |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-05-07 17:12:55 | Re: pg_dump --snapshot |