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

Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three
Date: 2010-11-30 16:59:20
Message-ID: 28288.1291136360@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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
bits.

> 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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-11-30 16:59:47
Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three
Previous:From: Alexey KlyukinDate: 2010-11-30 16:57:22
Subject: Re: Another proposal for table synonyms

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