| From: | "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 'Fujii Masao' <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com" <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Disable WAL logging to speed up data loading |
| Date: | 2020-11-24 02:18:51 |
| Message-ID: | OSBPR01MB48883072D368C336F640A063EDFB0@OSBPR01MB4888.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
On Monday, Nov 23, 2020 12:17 PM Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> PREPARE TRANSACTION is the same as COMMIT in that it persists
> transaction updates. A crash during wal_level = none loses both of them.
> So, I don't think PREPARE TRANSACTION needs special treatment.
Yeah, I got it. That makes sense.
Attached is the one I removed the special treatment.
> Does PREPARE TRANSACTION complete successfully? I remember
> Fujii-san said it PANICed if --enable-asserts is used in configure.
Yes. That assertion failure Fujii-San reported in the past
was solved by having rmid != RM_XACT_ID in XLogInsert()
to add WAL generation for transaction completes.
That I missed the condition was the cause but fine now.
Plus, PREPARE TRANSACTION and COMMIT PREPARED
works successfully at present when no happening occurs.
Best,
Takamichi Osumi
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| disable_WAL_logging_v04.patch | application/octet-stream | 13.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-11-24 02:39:33 | Re: Strange behavior with polygon and NaN |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-11-24 02:04:22 | Re: "as quickly as possible" (was: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait) |