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
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 |