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

Re: [HACKERS] Infrastructure changes for recovery

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Infrastructure changes for recovery
Date: 2008-09-10 21:06:37
Message-ID: 1221080797.3913.768.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 13:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> ISTM that it would probably be better if there were exactly one InRedo
> flag in shared memory, probably in xlog.c's shared state, with the
> postmaster not being responsible for setting or clearing it; rather
> the startup process should do those things.

Done

> > * bgwriter and stats process starts in consistent recovery mode.
> > bgwriter changes mode when startup process completes.
> 
> I'm not sure about the interaction of this.  In particular, what about
> recovery restart points before we have reached the safe stop point?
> I don't think we want to give up the capability of having those.
> 
> Also, it seems pretty bogus to update the in-memory ControlFile
> checkpoint values before the restart point is actually done.  It looks
> to me like what you have done is to try to use those fields as signaling
> for the restart request in addition to their existing purposes, which
> I think is confusing and probably dangerous.  I'd rather there were a
> different signaling path and ControlFile maintains its currrent
> definition.

Done


Testing takes a while on this, I probably won't complete it until
Friday. So enclosed patch is for eyeballs only at this stage.

I added in the XLogCtl padding we've discussed before, while I'm there.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

Attachment: recovery_infrastruc.v3.patch
Description: text/x-patch (37.6 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-09-10 21:32:34
Subject: Re: Interesting glitch in autovacuum
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-09-10 20:31:46
Subject: Re: Interesting glitch in autovacuum

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alex HunsakerDate: 2008-09-11 03:45:24
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3
Previous:From: Alex HunsakerDate: 2008-09-10 16:27:24
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3

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