Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three
Date: 2010-11-30 16:10:13
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 30.11.2010 17:38, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be easier and more robust to just consider VM bit changes to
>> be part of the WAL-logged actions?  That would include updating LSNs on
>> VM pages and flushing VM pages to disk during checkpoint based on their
>> LSN values.  All of these other schemes seem too complicated and not
>> provably correct.

> The vm bit can be set once all the tuples on the page become visible to 
> everyone. There is no WAL-logged action at that point we could piggyback on.

So you start emitting a WAL entry for the act of setting the VM bit
(and I guess the page header hint bit would be included in that too).

> Yeah, I'm not terribly excited about any of these schemes. The "intent" 
> record seems like the simplest one, but even that is quite different 
> from the traditional WAL-logging we do that it makes me slightly nervous.

I'm not convinced it works at all.  Consider write intent record,
checkpoint, set bit, crash before completing vacuum.  There will be
no second intent record at which you could clean up if things are

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-11-30 16:12:01
Subject: Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-11-30 16:04:05
Subject: Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group