From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: foreign key locks |
Date: | 2013-01-18 20:46:43 |
Message-ID: | 20130118204643.GA4359@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-01-18 15:37:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > The reason is that there is an (unknown to me) rule that there must be
> > some data not associated with a buffer:
>
> > /*
> > * NOTE: We disallow len == 0 because it provides a useful bit of extra
> > * error checking in ReadRecord. This means that all callers of
> > * XLogInsert must supply at least some not-in-a-buffer data. [...]
> > */
>
> > This seems pretty strange to me. And having the rule be spelled out
> > only in a comment within XLogInsert and not at its top, and not nearby
> > the XLogRecData struct definition either, seems pretty strange to me.
> > I wonder how come every PG hacker except me knows this.
>
> I doubt it ever came up before. What use is logging only the content of
> a buffer page? Surely you'd need to know, for example, which relation
> and page number it is from.
It only got to be a length of 0 because the the data got removed due to
a logged full page write. And the backup block contains the data about
which blocks it is logging in itself.
I wonder if the check shouldn't just check write_len instead, directly
below the loop that ads backup blocks.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2013-01-18 20:48:25 | Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-18 20:37:47 | Re: foreign key locks |