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 17:36:07
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 19:22, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But having said that, I wonder whether we need a full-page image for
>> a WAL-logged action that is known to involve only setting a single bit
>> and updating LSN.

> You have to write a full-page image if you update the LSN, because 
> otherwise the next update that comes along will not write a full page image.

Um.  Drat.  I was thinking about the replay side, where I think it would
actually work --- but you're right, it would break the logic on the
generation side.  Unless you want to put in some kind of flag saying
"this was only a visibility bit update, any bigger update still needs
to write an FPI".

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Daniel LoureiroDate: 2010-11-30 18:04:17
Subject: Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)
Previous:From: rickytato rickytatoDate: 2010-11-30 17:27:39

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