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
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 |