| From: | "Mike" <mike(at)fonolo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Jonah H(dot) Harris'" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: intercepting WAL writes |
| Date: | 2008-05-29 01:47:22 |
| Message-ID: | 009001c8c12d$efd67ec0$cf837c40$@com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jignesh K. Shah | 2008-05-29 03:13:12 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2008-05-29 01:12:40 | Re: Catching exceptions from COPY |