Re: logtape.c stats don't account for unused "prefetched" block numbers

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: logtape.c stats don't account for unused "prefetched" block numbers
Date: 2020-09-15 06:52:32
Message-ID: d99fa72cec855bf84064f74e4b576c72a9a6d033.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 18:42 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> We still need to put the reliance on ltsWriteBlock() allocating many
> blocks before they've been logically written on some kind of formal
> footing for Postgres 13 -- it is now possible that an all-zero block
> will be left behind even after we're done writing and have flushed
> all
> temp buffers, which is a new thing.

Is the current direction of this thread (i.e. the two posted patches)
addressing your concern here?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-09-15 07:00:54 Re: logtape.c stats don't account for unused "prefetched" block numbers
Previous Message Masahiro Ikeda 2020-09-15 06:52:30 Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size