On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 15:23 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 17:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > My first concern with that idea was that it may create an inconsistency
> > > between the primary and the standby. The primary could have a bunch of
> > > zero pages that never make it to the standby.
> > Maybe I'm slow on the uptake here, but don't the pages start out
> > all-zeroes on the standby just as they do on the primary? The only way
> > it seems like this would be a problem is if a page that previously
> > contained data on the primary was subsequently zeroed without writing
> > a WAL record - or am I confused?
> The case I was concerned about is when you have a table on the primary
> with a bunch of zero pages at the end. Then you SET TABLESPACE, and none
> of the copied pages (or even the fact that they exist) would be sent to
> the standby, but they would exist on the primary. And later pages may
> have data, so the standby may see page N but not N-1.
> Generally, most of the code is not expecting to read or write past the
> end of the file, unless it's doing an extension.
> However, I think everything is fine during recovery, because it looks
> like it's designed to create zero pages as needed. So your idea seems
> safe to me, although I do still have some doubts because of my lack of
> knowledge in this area; particularly hot standby conflict
> My idea was different: still log the zero page, just don't set LSN or
> TLI for a zero page in log_newpage() or heap_xlog_newpage(). This isn't
> as clean as your idea, but I'm a little more confident that it is
Both potential fixes attached and both appear to work.
fix1 -- Only call PageSetLSN/TLI inside log_newpage() and
heap_xlog_newpage() if the page is not zeroed.
fix2 -- Don't call log_newpage() at all if the page is not zeroed.
Please review. I don't have a strong opinion about which one should be
Description: text/x-patch (1.4 KB)
Description: text/x-patch (632 bytes)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-07-28 04:41:20|
|Subject: Re: PostGIS vs. PGXS in 9.0beta3|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-07-28 03:43:37|
|Subject: Re: Performance Enhancement/Fix for Array Utility Functions|