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


From: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: switch UNLOGGED to LOGGED
Date: 2011-05-27 09:49:13
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
> > - the  patch is missing the "send all table pages to the
> > standby" part; is  there some code I can use as base?
> Nothing comes to mind as especially  similar.
> > I guess I have to generate some special log type  that
> > is only "played" by standby servers.
> What you described in  your followup mail seemed reasonable.

So, it's ok to have a log item that is replayed only if 


is true?

Is it a correct approach? I couldn't find any other way to
find out if we are in a standby or a master...

> > - on the standby, the commit  part should be played as it
> > is on the master (that is, removing the INIT  fork).
> > The abort case is different though: it would mean
> > doing  nothing on the master, while removing every forks
> > but the INIT fork on  the standby.
> > Would it be ok to add to xl_xact_abort a new array  of
> > RelFileNode(s), where for each one at abort all the forks,
> >  except the init fork, have to be deleted by the standby
> > (while the  master shouldn't do anything with them)?
> > I bet there's a cleaner  solution...
> Your "use less space in xl_xact_commit patch" seems to be  going in a good
> direction here.  It would probably also be okay to do a  
> on the standby at every abort of a transaction that  had started an UNLOGGED 
> LOGGED conversion.  That is, just a flag  might be enough.
ok, but that would mean that a transaction that aborts a conversion
would try to reset all unlogged relations (traversing all the FS)... 
I don't know if that's acceptable performance-wise.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2011-05-27 10:10:41
Subject: Re: compatibility issue with DirectFunctionCall1
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2011-05-27 09:06:39
Subject: compatibility issue with DirectFunctionCall1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group