Re: intercepting WAL writes

From: "Koichi Suzuki" <koichi(dot)szk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Mike <mike(at)fonolo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: intercepting WAL writes
Date: 2008-05-29 03:28:15
Message-ID: a778a7260805282028p4b3c0baby3978eacf33ca697@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

And you will have a chance to encounter full page writes, whole page
image, which could be produced during the hot backup and the first
modification to the data page after a checkpoint (if you turn full
page write option "on" by GUC).

2008/5/29 Mike <mike(at)fonolo(dot)com>:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Mike <mike(at)fonolo(dot)com> wrote:
>>> When you say a bit of decoding, is that because the data written to the
> logs
>>> is after the query parser/planner? Or because it's written in several
>>> chunks? Or?
>>
>>Because that's the actual recovery record. There is no SQL text, just
>>the WAL record type (XLOG_HEAP_INSERT, XLOG_HEAP_UPDATE,
>>XLOG_XACT_COMMIT, ...) and the data as it relates to that operation.
>
> Oh- right- that makes sense.
>
> I installed and started looking at the source code for xlogviewer and
> xlogdump; seems like a reasonable place to start.
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Mike
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

--
------
Koichi Suzuki

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2008-05-29 03:34:14 Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1
Previous Message Jignesh K. Shah 2008-05-29 03:22:34 Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work