From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
Date: | 2022-03-11 06:22:44 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-tY7LgmX07__TOJdsqJan3wrDW2T-O_x=cf-VDxyncvcQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:18 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 6:02 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I have completely changed the logic for this refactoring. Basically,
> > write_relmap_file(), is already having parameters to control whether
> > to write wal, send inval and we are already passing the dbpath.
> > Instead of making a new function I just pass one additional parameter
> > to this function itself about whether we are creating a new map or not
> > and I think with that changes are very less and this looks cleaner to
> > me. Similarly for load_relmap_file() also I just had to pass the
> > dbpath and memory for destination map. Please have a look and let me
> > know your thoughts.
>
> It's not terrible, but how about something like the attached instead?
> I think this has the effect of reducing the number of cases that the
> low-level code needs to know about from 2 to 1, instead of making it
> go up from 2 to 3.
Yeah this looks cleaner, I will rebase the remaining patch.
> > I think we should also write the test cases for create database
> > strategy. But I do not see any test case for create database for
> > testing the existing options. So I am wondering whether we should add
> > the test case only for the new option we are providing or we should
> > create a separate path which tests the new option as well as the
> > existing options.
>
> FWIW, src/bin/scripts/t/020_createdb.pl does a little bit of testing
> of this kind.
Okay, I think we need to support the strategy in createdb bin as well.
I will do that.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Westermann (DWE) | 2022-03-11 06:24:15 | Re: Changing "Hot Standby" to "hot standby" |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-03-11 06:18:37 | Re: Changing "Hot Standby" to "hot standby" |