Re: Why clearing the VM doesn't require registering vm buffer in wal record

From: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: Why clearing the VM doesn't require registering vm buffer in wal record
Date: 2026-10-06 06:38:02
Message-ID: 7A3B2E5A-6E83-46BE-8705-EBCB7CFD5B58@yandex-team.ru
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Melanie,

On 24 Sep 2026, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> v2-0001 is 19-only and fixes the divergent VM bits on the standby

The UPDATE fallback from v1 is missing in both versions of 0001.
heap_xlog_update() handles VM_OLD/VM_NEW itself, without calling
heap_xlog_vm_clear(), so an unregistered VM page is still skipped.

I reproduced this with UPDATE in your CREATE DATABASE/failover scenario
on master. Could we add the fallback there too?

Separately, Shihao's v3 [0] adds PageInit() fix on top of your 0002.

Thank you!

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGRkXqSZXoazu1x48pz2SuW_xHYQDdRcbp2HNCfRNm_WLF8aYA%40mail.gmail.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Previous Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2026-10-06 06:37:32 RE: Parallel Apply