| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 17:25:41 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinM57GpFRy78HniGQb+ojdMTtx-u7U2T3n9b0Ge@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> But having said that, I wonder whether we need a full-page image for
> a WAL-logged action that is known to involve only setting a single bit
> and updating LSN. Would omitting the FPI be any more risky than what
> happens now (ie, the page does get written back to disk at some point,
> without any image from which it can be rewritten if the write fails...)
That's pretty much exactly what Heikki proposed 35 minutes ago, and
you objected 6 minutes later. I still think it might work.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-30 17:26:08 | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-11-30 17:25:18 | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three |