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

Re: AW: AW: AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Patrick WelcheDate: 2000-07-26 15:25:09
Subject: Re: Installation Report for powerpc-apple-netbsdelf1.5
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-07-26 15:12:08
Subject: Re: Some questions on user defined types and functions.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group