Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Ouch. That seems like it could shoot down all these proposals. There
>> definitely isn't any way to make VM crash-safe if there is no WAL-driven
>> mechanism for setting the bits.
> Heikki's intent method works fine, because the WAL record only clears
> the visibility map bits on redo; it never sets them.
Uh, no, because he also had that final WAL record that would set the
> We could actually allow the slave to set the visibility map bits based
> on its own xmin horizon.
Not in a crash-safe way, which is exactly the problem here.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-11-30 16:59:47|
|Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three|
|Previous:||From: Alexey Klyukin||Date: 2010-11-30 16:57:22|
|Subject: Re: Another proposal for table synonyms |