| From: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Questions on extending a relation |
| Date: | 2005-06-28 02:38:06 |
| Message-ID: | d9qdae$2g98$1@news.hub.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes
>
> Yes. That's intentional --- otherwise they'd all block each other.
>
So if I saw the last two pages on a disk relation are half full, that's
nothing wrong?
>
> Why wouldn't we replay xlog? Note in particular that the bgwriter is
> not allowed to push page B to disk until the xlog entry describing the
> index change has been flushed to disk. Since that will come after the
> xlog entry about the heap change, both changes are necessarily on-disk
> in the xlog, and both will be remade during replay.
>
Yes, I made a mistake. We reply xlog in any ways (no matter the transaction
commits or not).
Thanks,
Qingqing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-06-28 02:58:22 | Re: Problem with dblink regression test |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2005-06-28 02:20:38 | Re: Implementing SQL/PSM for PG 8.2 |