| 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: | 29237.1291138567@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Loureiro | 2010-11-30 18:04:17 | Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack) |
| Previous Message | rickytato rickytato | 2010-11-30 17:27:39 |