Re: xlog switch & last record before the switch

From: "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Postgresql-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: xlog switch & last record before the switch
Date: 2007-07-12 15:02:36
Message-ID: 4696428C.9000201@phlo.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 16:17 +0200, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
>
>> To test my PITR-slave readonly-query patch, I continously do
>> insert into test ...
>> pg_switch_xlog()
>> sleep 1
>> on the master, and let the slave process the generated xlogs
>>
>> The log output on the slave looks the following (unnecessary lines remove)
>>
>> <snipped log output>>
>>
>> As you can see, the COMMIT records seems to end up being logged *after*
>> the xlog switch. I would have expected the order
>> "heap-insert, commit, switch, heap-insert, commit, switch, ...", not
>> "heap-insert, switch, commit, heap-insert, switch, commit, ...".
>>
>> Is this the expected behaviour, or just an artefact of the implementation
>> of xlog switches?
>
> Can you show the exact SQL executed?
>
> If you do INSERT ... ;select pg_switch_xlog() then the COMMIT will occur
> after the switch. If you do:
> INSERT ...;
> select pg_switch_xlog();
> then the COMMIT will occur before the switch.

Ah, you caught me - I had forgotten that pgsql -c "<statement>"
executes the statement in one transaction.

I was just going to suggest that pg_start_backup, pg_stop_backup
and pg_switch_xlog emit a warning or even an error if called
from within a larger transaction, because that's quite certainly
not what the user wants. But since those are just plain functions,
I guess checking for that might not be trivial...

> If it were otherwise this would imply statements were executed prior to
> the previous commit, which I hope and pray is never the case.
You can relax, the bug was located in front of the screen :-)

greetings, Florian Pflug

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-07-12 15:06:32 Re: [GENERAL] Count(*) throws error
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-07-12 14:54:29 Re: [GENERAL] Count(*) throws error