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

Re: switch UNLOGGED to LOGGED

From: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: switch UNLOGGED to LOGGED
Date: 2011-05-31 07:39:38
Message-ID: 569976.56967.qm@web29007.mail.ird.yahoo.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> I think
> we need a detailed design document for how  this is all going to work.
> We need to not only handle the master properly but  also handle the
> slave properly.  Consider, for example, the case where  the slave
> begins to replay the transaction, reaches a restartpoint  after
> replaying some of the new pages, and then crashes.  If the  subsequent
> restart from the restartpoint blows away the main relation fork,  we're
> hosed.  I fear we're plunging into implementation details  without
> having a good overall design in mind first.


As I said in my first post, I'm basing the patch on the post:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00315.php


So I assumed the design was ok (except for the "stray file around
on a standby" case, which has been discussed earlier on this thread).

If there are things to be discussed/analyzed (I guess the restart point
thing is one of those) we can do it... but I thought that the whole
design was somehow in place



Leonardo

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2011-05-31 08:01:48
Subject: Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2011-05-31 07:16:01
Subject: Re: Cube Index Size

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