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

Re: bug of recovery?

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bug of recovery?
Date: 2011-12-02 08:59:01
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 04.10.2011 09:43, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>  wrote:
>>> I don't think this should use the rm_safe_restartpoint machinery. As you
>>> said, it's not tied to any specific resource manager. And I've actually been
>>> thinking that we will get rid of rm_safe_restartpoint altogether in the
>>> future. The two things that still use it are the b-tree and gin, and I'd
>>> like to change both of those to not require any post-recovery cleanup step
>>> to finish multi-page operations, similar to what I did with GiST in 9.1.
>> I thought that was quite neat doing it that way, but there's no
>> specific reason to do it that way I guess. If you're happy to rewrite
>> the patch then I guess we're OK.
>> I certainly would like to get rid of rm_safe_restartpoint in the
>> longer term, hopefully sooner.
> Though Heikki might be already working on that,...

Just haven't gotten around to it. It's a fair amount of work with little 
user-visible benefit.

> anyway,
> the attached patch is the version which doesn't use rm_safe_restartpoint
> machinery.

Thanks, committed.

   Heikki Linnakangas

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2011-12-02 10:14:17
Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2011-12-02 08:42:53
Subject: Re: Why so few built-in range types?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group