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

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

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: AW: AW: AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples
Date: 2000-07-26 15:09:17
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> >> We scan the log and come upon the rename.
> >> Hmm, there's a file foo and no file bar ... looks like the 
> >> rename didn't get done, so do it.  Ooops.
> > No again. You come upon "starting rename operation" and then either 
> > 	no more log records (backend abort)
> > or 
> > 	log record "rename succeeded"
> > or
> > 	log record "rename failed"  --> transaction abort
> > In this scenario you can decide what to do without second guessing.
> 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.
The backends could not have created a new file of the old name
after "starting rename" beeing last log record. 



pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-07-26 15:12:08
Subject: Re: Some questions on user defined types and functions.
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-07-26 14:46:27
Subject: Re: Is Pg 7.0.x's Locking Mechanism BROKEN?

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