Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: AW: AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples
Date: 2000-07-26 14:30:57
Message-ID: 10720.964621857@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> We scan the log and come upon the rename.
>> Hmm, there's a file foo and no file bar ... looks like the 
>> rename didn't get done, so do it.  Ooops.

> No again. You come upon "starting rename operation" and then either 
> 	no more log records (backend abort)
> or 
> 	log record "rename succeeded"
> or
> 	log record "rename failed"  --> transaction abort

> In this scenario you can decide what to do without second guessing.

If there are no more records, then you are reduced to guessing whether
you have to undo the rename or not.  If you guess wrong, you leave the
database in a corrupted state.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeffery CollinsDate: 2000-07-26 14:37:26
Subject: Re: Some questions on user defined types and functions.
Previous:From: Fabrice ScemamaDate: 2000-07-26 14:01:18
Subject: Is Pg 7.0.x's Locking Mechanism BROKEN?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group