Re: WAL usage calculation patch

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Kirill Bychik <kirill(dot)bychik(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Date: 2020-04-23 06:46:50
Message-ID: 05bdb944-e12b-232a-41c0-e78cc9e63d17@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-04-23 07:31, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I agree that full page writes can be used in this case, but I'm
> wondering if that can be misleading for some reader which might e.g.
> confuse with the full_page_writes GUC. And as Justin pointed out, the
> documentation for now usually mentions "full page image(s)" in such
> cases.

ISTM that in the context of this patch, "full-page image" is correct. A
"full-page write" is what you do to a table or index page when you are
recovering a full-page image. The internal symbol for the WAL record is
XLOG_FPI and xlogdesc.c prints it as "FPI".

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2020-04-23 06:53:11 Re: Regression instability + performance issue in TRIGGERS view
Previous Message Rajkumar Raghuwanshi 2020-04-23 06:43:33 Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup