| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: AW: AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples |
| Date: | 2000-07-26 15:18:06 |
| Message-ID: | 11125.964624686@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> If there are no more records, then you are reduced to guessing whether
>> you have to undo the rename or not. If you guess wrong, you leave the
>> database in a corrupted state.
> If the original filename exists the rename failed else it succeeded.
That's exactly the unreliable assumption I do not want to make.
> The backends could not have created a new file of the old name
> after "starting rename" beeing last log record.
So you're assuming that we fsync() the log after *each* item is added?
*Within* a transaction? fsync only at end of xact was the plan,
I believe.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Patrick Welche | 2000-07-26 15:25:09 | Re: Installation Report for powerpc-apple-netbsdelf1.5 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-26 15:12:08 | Re: Some questions on user defined types and functions. |