Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code

From: "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code
Date: 2008-12-24 15:10:42
Message-ID: 3f0b79eb0812240710j7e613f3atfd6b6fc27403546e@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Yes, OK. So I think it would only work when full_page_writes = on, and
>> has been on since last checkpoint. So two changes:
>>
>> * We just need a boolean that starts at true every checkpoint and gets
>> set to false anytime someone resets full_page_writes or archive_command.
>> If the flag is set && full_page_writes = on then we skip the checkpoint
>> entirely and use the value from the last checkpoint.
>
> Sounds good.

I attached the self-contained patch to skip checkpoint at pg_start_backup.

>
> pg_start_backup on the standby (probably you are planning?) also needs
> this logic? If so, resetting full_page_writes or archive_command should
> generate its xlog.

Now, the patch doesn't care about this.

>
> I have another thought: should we forbid the reset of archive_command
> during online backup? Currently we can do. If we don't need to do so,
> we also don't need to track the reset of archiving for fast pg_start_backup.

Now, doesn't care too.

Happy Holidays!

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

Attachment Content-Type Size
bkp_without_ckpt_v1.patch text/x-patch 16.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Mielke 2008-12-24 15:18:23 Re: Synchronous replication, reading WAL for sending
Previous Message Robert Treat 2008-12-24 14:59:50 Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items