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

RE: AW: AW: Re: Backup and Recovery

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: AW: AW: Re: Backup and Recovery
Date: 2001-07-06 15:54:27
Message-ID: 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E320166AD@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Good point.  We'd have to recognize btree splits (and possibly some
> other operations) as things that must be done anyway, even if their
> originating transaction is aborted.
> 
> There already is a mechanism for doing that: xlog entries can
> be written without any transaction identifier (see XLOG_NO_TRAN).
> Seems to me that btree split XLOG records should be getting written
> that way now --- Vadim, don't you agree?

We would have to write two records per split instead of one as now.
Another way is new xlog AM method: we have XXX_redo, XXX_undo (unfunctional)
and XXX_desc (for debug output) now - add XXX_compact (or whatever)
able to modify record somehow for BAR. For heap, etc this method could
be {return} (or NULL) and for btree it could remove inserted tuple
from record (for aborted TX).

Vadim


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-07-06 16:02:04
Subject: Re: Vacuum and Transactions
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-07-06 15:45:17
Subject: Re: Vacuum and Transactions

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