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

Re: Updating FSM on recovery

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Updating FSM on recovery
Date: 2008-10-30 10:52:50
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:

> Hmm. I think an enum is better than a bitmask here. At the moment, we need
> three different modes of operation:
> 1. Read the page as usual, throw an error on corrupted page (ReadBuffer())
> 2. Read the page, zero page on corruption (this is new)

Is this new? Would it make sense for zero_damaged_pages to use this? Perhaps
the enum should have an option to error on damaged pages, warn and zero
damaged pages, or just zero damaged pages.

We might also want different behaviour for pages for which the crc doesn't
match versus pages that have nonsensical page headers.

> 3. Don't read the page from disk, just allocate a buffer. (ReadOrZeroBuffer())

  Gregory Stark
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Markus WannerDate: 2008-10-30 11:20:19
Subject: Re: Postgres-R pacth
Previous:From: Zdenek KotalaDate: 2008-10-30 10:39:45
Subject: Question about GetAttributeByNum(Name) ExecQual.c

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