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

Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three

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 17:01:56
Message-ID: AANLkTinMLD+V5uf6178YTB-Q4eqrt7Zvg+pObCuwehaJ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Ouch.  That seems like it could shoot down all these proposals.  There
>>> definitely isn't any way to make VM crash-safe if there is no WAL-driven
>>> mechanism for setting the bits.
>
>> Heikki's intent method works fine, because the WAL record only clears
>> the visibility map bits on redo; it never sets them.
>
> Uh, no, because he also had that final WAL record that would set the
> bits.

Well, as already discussed upthread, that WAL record causes some other
problems, so make it Heikki's intent method, without the final WAL
record that breaks things.

>> We could actually allow the slave to set the visibility map bits based
>> on its own xmin horizon.
>
> Not in a crash-safe way, which is exactly the problem here.

Brilliant selective quoting.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-11-30 17:03:40
Subject: Re: Another proposal for table synonyms
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-11-30 17:00:29
Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three

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