Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation

From: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com, postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl, smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com, vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com, jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com, barwick(at)gmail(dot)com, jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com, pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com, jakub(dot)wartak(at)tomtom(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation
Date: 2025-04-04 21:29:03
Message-ID: CAA-aLv55VxSS0NZ=pPbi65oQ9m8===EYGV6kOj6V2RE69aM2ZQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 at 08:26, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hello. This is the updated version.
>
> (Sorry for the delay; I've been a little swamped.)
>
> - Undo logs are primarily stored in a fixed number of fixed-length
> slots and are spilled into files under some conditions.
>
> The number of slots is 32 (ULOG_SLOT_NUM), and the buffer length is
> 1024 (ULOG_SLOT_BUF_LEN). Both are currently non-configurable.
>
> - Undo logs are now used only during recovery and no longer involved
> in transaction ends for normal backends. Pending deletes for aborts
> have been restored.
>
> - Undo logs are stored on a per-Top-XID basis.
>
> - RelationPreserverStorate() is no longer modified.
>
> In this version, in the part following the introduction of orphan
> storage prevention, the restriction on prepared transactions
> persisting beyond server crashes (i.e., the prohibition) has been
> removed. This is because handling for such cases has been reverted to
> pendingDeletes.
>
> Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I just went to give this a test drive, but HEAD has drifted too far,
at least for 0017 to apply. Could you please rebase and make the
necessary modifications?

Thanks

Thom

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2025-04-04 21:32:24 Re: Change COPY ... ON_ERROR ignore to ON_ERROR ignore_row
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2025-04-04 21:22:52 Re: Proposal: Limitations of palloc inside checkpointer