| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, konstantin knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Unlogged tables cleanup |
| Date: | 2019-05-14 05:22:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20190514052215.GA1889@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 09:33:52PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-05-14 13:23:28 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> What's actually the reason preventing us from delaying the
>> checkpointer like the index AMs for the logging of heap init fork?
>
> I'm not following. What do you mean by "delaying the checkpointer"?
I mean what Robert has mentioned here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZ4TWaPCKhF-szV-nPxDXL40zCwm9pNFJZURvRgm2oJzQ@mail.gmail.com
And my gut tells me that he got that right, because we are discussing
about race conditions with crashes and checkpoints in-between calls to
smgrimmedsync() and log_newpage(). That could be invasive for
back-branches, but for HEAD this would make the whole init fork
handling saner.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-05-14 05:50:58 | Tab completion for CREATE TYPE |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2019-05-14 04:59:10 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |