From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: bug of recovery? |
Date: | 2011-10-03 07:32:04 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJewJBQ4xRDsMKNE1KPK2-iwNo9uNWhYrV3SOnYU73ZVw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 29.09.2011 14:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Florian Pflug<fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, why don't we use that machinery to implement this? There's
>>> currently no rm_safe_restartpoint callback for RM_XLOG_ID, so we'd just need
>>> to create one that checks whether invalid_page_tab is empty.
>>
>> Okay, the attached patch prevents the creation of restartpoints by using
>> rm_safe_restartpoint callback if we've not reached a consistent state yet
>> and the invalid-page table is not empty. But the invalid-page table is not
>> tied to the specific resource manager, so using rm_safe_restartpoint for
>> that seems to slightly odd. Is this OK?
>
> 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.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2011-10-03 08:07:04 | Re: WIP: Join push-down for foreign tables |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-10-03 07:26:16 | Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer |