Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: noah(at)leadboat(dot)com
Cc: robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com, andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
Date: 2019-12-26 05:45:26
Message-ID: 20191226.144526.1274190438297223221.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At Thu, 26 Dec 2019 12:46:39 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > - Reverted most post-v24nm changes to swap_relation_files(). Under
> > "-DRELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE", relcache.c quickly discards the
> > rel1->rd_node.relNode update. Clearing rel2->rd_createSubid is not right if
> > we're running CLUSTER for the second time in one transaction. I used
>
> I don't agree to that. As I think I have mentioned upthread, rel2 is
> wrongly marked as "new in this tranction" at that time, which hinders
> the opportunity of removal and such entries wrongly persist for the
> backend life and causes problems. (That was found by abort-time
> AssertPendingSyncs_RelationCache()..)

I played with the new version for a while and I don't see such a
problem. I don't recall cleary what I saw the time I thought I saw a
problem but I changed my mind to agree to that. It's far reasonable
and clearer as long as it works correctly.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2019-12-26 05:47:21 Re: unsupportable composite type partition keys
Previous Message Noah Misch 2019-12-26 04:22:04 Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?