| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | richt(at)multera(dot)com |
| Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |
| Date: | 2002-08-07 15:40:34 |
| Message-ID: | 16270.1028734834@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Richard Tucker <richt(at)multera(dot)com> writes:
>>> Eh? The kernel does that for you, as long as you're reading the
>>> same-size blocks that the backends are writing, no?
> We know for sure the kernel does this? I think this is a dubious
> assumption.
Yeah, as someone pointed out later, it doesn't work if the kernel's
internal buffer size is smaller than our BLCKSZ. So we do still need
the page images in WAL --- that protection against non-atomic writes
at the hardware level should serve for this problem too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-07 15:51:08 | Re: Heap tuple header issues |
| Previous Message | Richard Tucker | 2002-08-07 15:32:01 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |