From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |
Date: | 2015-11-21 14:30:17 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqROUqwj0Hx55678TVXAp05sNPJexHmYo6f9yqiKf8ex=w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For master and perhaps 9.5, I would think that a dedicated WAL record
> type enforcing the fsync is the way to go. This special treatment
> would go only for btree and spgist when they use INIT_FORKNUM and we
> would not impact other relation types and code paths with this
> behavior.
So, I have been looking at that, and finished with the attached to
implement this idea. This way, it is possible to control at replay if
a relation should be synced to disk just after replaying a FPI or a
set of FPIs. This makes btree and spgist init forks more consistent at
replay with what is done on master by syncing them immediately, which
is not a bad thing to me.
Now, and actually my last email has been misleading as well, this
patch as well as the previous patch I sent for ~9.4 do not actually
fix the initialization of indexes for unlogged tables after promoting
a standby. Hence I guess that we are still missing a trick when
reinitializing those relations at the end of recovery. It is a bit
late here so I am attaching a patch reflecting the progress I have
done. Comments are welcome.
--
Michael
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
20151121_xlog_fpi_replay_master_95.patch | binary/octet-stream | 9.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-11-21 14:44:39 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-11-21 11:59:02 | Re: CreateFunction Statement |