| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Date: | 2017-04-07 23:42:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20170407234217.i345adtkknjfw6ss@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I suppose the rationale is that this shouldn't happen because any
> operation that does things this way must hold an exclusive lock on the
> relation. But that doesn't guarantee that the relcache entry is
> completely stable, does it? If we can get proof of that, then this
> technique should be safe, I think.
It occurs to me that in order to test this we could run the recovery
tests (including Michael's new 006 file, which you didn't include in
your patch) under -D CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS. I think that'd be sufficient
proof that it is solid.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Keith Fiske | 2017-04-08 00:02:31 | Re: Partitioned tables vs GRANT |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-04-07 23:36:25 | Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |