From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FSM, now without WAL-logging |
Date: | 2008-09-24 20:36:41 |
Message-ID: | 10998.1222288601@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Hmm. The smgrtuncate WAL record is generated after the file is
> truncated, so there's still a small window there, where we can be left
> with a truncated main fork, but no smgrtruncate record for it, and thus
> the page of the FSM representing the truncated blocks doesn't get zeroed
> at replay.
Hmm. I seem to recall that that ordering was intentional, but I don't
recall why just now. The code doesn't say but maybe there's something
in the archives. It does seem a little odd since it's an apparent
violation of the wal-before-data rule.
If you wanted to be certain that the WAL record existed you'd have to
not only generate it first but fsync it, which would be a bit of a
performance hit. OTOH I'm not sure we care about smgrtruncate being
really quick...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-09-24 20:48:10 | Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches (for CommitFest:Sep) |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-09-24 20:29:45 | Re: FSM, now without WAL-logging |