Re: Some other things about contrib/bloom and generic_xlog.c

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Some other things about contrib/bloom and generic_xlog.c
Date: 2016-04-12 16:28:10
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYgk5Z4B1u7eEp9QJDL+cC0ULuKnO4_SwyumahBAOqNvg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Repeating the mapping at each checkpoint sounds pretty reasonable and means
> we always know what we need. There's no need to bloat each record with an
> extension name and no need for any kind of ugly global registration. The
> mapping table would be small and simple. I like it.
>
> Of course, it's all maybe-in-future stuff at this point, but I think that's
> a really good way to approach it.
>
> There's no way around the fact that user defined redo functions can affect
> reliability. But then, so can user-defined data types, functions, bgworkers,
> plpython functions loading ctypes, plpython functions getting creative in
> the datadir, and admins who paste into the wrong window. The scope for
> problems is somewhat greater but not IMO prohibitively so.

I am in agreement with you on both the merits of this particular thing
and the general principle you are articulating regarding how to think
about these things.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Teodor Sigaev 2016-04-12 16:30:26 Re: GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2016-04-12 16:23:24 Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0