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

Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three
Date: 2010-11-30 15:46:44
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> On 30.11.2010 06:57, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I can't say I'm totally in love with any of these designs.  Anyone
>>> else have any ideas, or any opinions about which one is best?
>> Well, the design I've been pondering goes like this:
> Wouldn't it be easier and more robust to just consider VM bit changes to
> be part of the WAL-logged actions?  That would include updating LSNs on
> VM pages and flushing VM pages to disk during checkpoint based on their
> LSN values.  All of these other schemes seem too complicated and not
> provably correct.

What WAL-logged actions?

The problem case is where a page has no tuples or line pointers that
need to be removed, and all we need to do is mark it all-visible.  We
don't current WAL-log anything in that case.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-11-30 15:53:25
Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-11-30 15:43:47
Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three

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