| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location |
| Date: | 2023-08-31 04:33:27 |
| Message-ID: | ZPAYF06X98pe7mDe@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 09:55:45AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> Yeah, good catch. With this, it seems like we can not move this new
> WAL Insert out of the Exclusive WAL insertion lock right? Because if
> we want to set the LSN of this record as the checkpoint.redo then
> there should not be any concurrent insertion until we expose the
> XLogCtl->Insert.RedoRecPtr. Otherwise, we will miss the FPW for all
> the record which has been inserted after the checkpoint.redo before
> we acquired the exclusive WAL insertion lock.
Yes.
> So maybe I need to restart from the first version of the patch but
> instead of moving the insertion of the new record out of the exclusive
> lock need to do some better refactoring so that XLogInsertRecord()
> doesn't look ugly.
Yes, I am not sure which interface would be less ugli-ish, but that's
enough material for a refactoring patch of the WAL insert routines on
top of the main patch that introduces the REDO record.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-08-31 04:44:07 | Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2023-08-31 04:25:45 | Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location |