Re: Unlogged tables, persistent kind

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unlogged tables, persistent kind
Date: 2011-04-24 22:13:18
Message-ID: BANLkTikQF_CV5dM7P_fi1=MaaCDGhk0P_A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> My implementation path for that would be to add a crash_number onto
>> pg_control and pg_index. Any index marked as "unlogged, persistent"
>> would only be usable if it's crash number is the same as current
>> system crash number.
>>
>> REINDEX would update the index crash number to current value. That
>> also allows us to imagine a "repair index" command in the future as
>> well.
>
> This seems useful for non-crash-safe indexes in general.
>
>> Heap blocks would be zeroed if they were found to be damaged, following a crash.
>>
>
> How do you propose to detect that? Until we solve the whole checksum
> story I don't think we have a reliable way to detect bad pages. And in
> some cases where do detect them we would detect them by crashing.

That should be changed.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2011-04-24 22:15:44 Re: Unlogged tables, persistent kind
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-04-24 22:03:24 Re: Extension Packaging