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

Re: switch UNLOGGED to LOGGED

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: switch UNLOGGED to LOGGED
Date: 2011-05-31 15:39:03
Message-ID: BANLkTikvY11QJMxVM_7ZsTdeiqL7UcG_oA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
>> 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).

Well, I sort of assumed the design was OK, too, but the more we talk
about this WAL-logging stuff, the less convinced I am that I really
understand the problem.  :-(

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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-05-31 15:40:40
Subject: Re: patch integration
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2011-05-31 15:38:16
Subject: Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project

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