Re: double writes using "double-write buffer" approach [WIP]

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dan Scales <scales(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: double writes using "double-write buffer" approach [WIP]
Date: 2012-02-06 11:08:15
Message-ID: CAHGQGwG7pEUbEZSgZvPsTEBFf0yGwPezSn6TSaKWsLf1j0Eeaw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Dan Scales <scales(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> Let me know if you have any thoughts/comments, etc.  The patch is
> enclosed, and the README.doublewrites is updated a fair bit.

ISTM that the double-write can prevent torn-pages in neither double-write file
nor data file in *base backup*. Because both double-write file and data file can
be backed up while being written. Is this right? To avoid the torn-page problem,
we should write FPI to WAL during online backup even if the double-write has
been committed?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jasen Betts 2012-02-06 11:13:08 Re: Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable?
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2012-02-06 10:44:27 Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2