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

Re: FPI

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: FPI
Date: 2011-02-01 17:41:38
Message-ID: 28890.1296582098@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So I'm back to proposing that we just apply FPI-free WAL records
> unconditionally, without regard to the LSN.  This could potentially
> corrupt the page, of course.

Yes.  So you're still assuming that there will be a later FPI-containing
WAL record to fix up the mess you created.  What if there isn't?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

  • Re: FPI at 2011-02-01 02:28:43 from Robert Haas

Responses

  • Re: FPI at 2011-02-01 17:47:03 from Robert Haas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-02-01 17:44:05
Subject: Re: Spread checkpoint sync
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-02-01 17:39:12
Subject: Re: Authentication Enhancement Proposal

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