On 8/2/07, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> . It would also be better if we didn't emit a
> > separate WAL record for defraging a page, if we also prune it at the
> > same time. I'm not that worried about WAL usage in general, but that
> > seems simple enough to fix.
> Ah I see. I shall fix that.
When I started making this change, I realized that we need the
second WAL record because if the block is backed up in pruning
WAL write, we may never call PageRepairFragmentation during
the redo phase. Of course, we can fix that by making
heap_xlog_clean always repair page fragmentation irrespective
of whether the block was backed up, but that doesn't seem like
a good solution.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2007-08-07 18:01:45|
|Subject: HOT patch, missing things |
|Previous:||From: Decibel!||Date: 2007-08-07 18:00:37|
|Subject: Re: HOT patch - version 13|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2007-08-07 18:11:03|
|Subject: Re: further WIP for COPYable logs|
|Previous:||From: Pavan Deolasee||Date: 2007-08-07 12:56:48|
|Subject: HOT patch - version 13|