| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, 蔡梦娟(玊于) <mengjuan(dot)cmj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, Jakub Wartak <Jakub(dot)Wartak(at)tomtom(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: prevent immature WAL streaming |
| Date: | 2021-09-01 17:00:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20210901170052.4iz3iilihqkad4ui@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-09-01 15:01:43 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying that! Unless I misunderstand that, when recovery ends
> at a partially-flushed segment-spanning record, it sets
> XLP_FIRST_IS_ABORTED_PARTIAL in the next segment before starting writing
> new WAL data there. Therefore XLP_FIRST_IS_CONTRECORD or
> XLP_FIRST_IS_ABORTED_PARTIAL must be set in the next segment following
> a partially-flushed segment-spanning record. If none of them is set,
> the validation code in recovery should report an error.
Right. With the small addition that I think we shouldn't just do this for
segment spanning records, but for all records spanning pages.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2021-09-01 17:26:26 | Re: mark the timestamptz variant of date_bin() as stable |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2021-09-01 16:51:42 | Re: 2021-09 Commitfest |