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 17:01:56 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinMLD+V5uf6178YTB-Q4eqrt7Zvg+pObCuwehaJ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Ouch. That seems like it could shoot down all these proposals. There
>>> definitely isn't any way to make VM crash-safe if there is no WAL-driven
>>> mechanism for setting the bits.
>
>> Heikki's intent method works fine, because the WAL record only clears
>> the visibility map bits on redo; it never sets them.
>
> Uh, no, because he also had that final WAL record that would set the
> bits.
Well, as already discussed upthread, that WAL record causes some other
problems, so make it Heikki's intent method, without the final WAL
record that breaks things.
>> We could actually allow the slave to set the visibility map bits based
>> on its own xmin horizon.
>
> Not in a crash-safe way, which is exactly the problem here.
Brilliant selective quoting.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-30 17:03:40 | Re: Another proposal for table synonyms |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-30 17:00:29 | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three |